Summary
The Madras High Court required a district cricket association to follow the sports-governance directions issued in S. Nithya (an athletics case), including that office bearers be sportspersons and 75% of members be eminent sportspersons. The Supreme Court held those directions inapplicable to cricket, which is governed by the BCCI judgment, and held that the BCCI judgment does not require district associations to copy the BCCI Constitution. It urged State associations to drive governance reforms and left membership disputes to pending proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the directions in S. Nithya v. Union of India, issued on athletics governance, apply to a district cricket association.
- Whether a district cricket association must amend its Constitution to conform to the BCCI Constitution approved in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar.
- How the disputes over membership and elections of the appellant association should proceed, given pending proceedings before the High Court and the Registrar.
Provisions considered
- Article 19(1)(c), Constitution of IndiaRelying on the passages of the BCCI judgment holding that its recommendations did not alter the composition of State associations and so did not infringe Article 19(1)(c), the Court accepted that the BCCI judgment does not require district associations to restructure on BCCI lines. (¶¶ 18, 20)
- Articles 15(2), 38, 38(2) and 39(b), Constitution of IndiaInvoked to describe sporting facilities and opportunities as material resources of the community and sporting bodies as places of public resort that must stay accessible and be run with integrity and professionalism. (¶ 23)
- Section 36, Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975The Court noted pending proceedings under Section 36 and a suo motu inquiry by the Registrar about membership of the appellant, declined to comment on the proposed bye-law amendments, and left those questions to the High Court and the statutory authority. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Held
- The appellant having conceded the specific prayers, respondent no. 1 club was to be allowed to vote, and respondent no. 2's prayer for oversight of the association's future election could be allowed. (¶¶ 5, 8)
- The S. Nithya directions arose from athletics governance and do not apply to a district cricket association. The BCCI judgment already governed cricket and contained no requirement that 75% of members be eminent sportspersons or that district association membership depend on being an eminent sportsperson. (¶¶ 10, 11, 15)
- The BCCI judgment does not require district associations to model their regulations and bye-laws on the exact lines of the BCCI Constitution, and nothing on record showed any agreement or direction to that effect; the appellant could not be directed by judicial review to restructure in terms of the BCCI Constitution. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Although such reform cannot be enforced through judicial review, the State association should initiate reforms so that district associations operate professionally and transparently, and district associations should voluntarily adopt good governance, transparency in selection and contracts, and the exclusion of conflicts of interest. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- Questions of membership and composition of the association, pending before the High Court and the statutory authority, should be resolved expeditiously so that elections can be held at the earliest. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; High Court judgment set aside to the extent it applied the S. Nithya directions; High Court directed to dispose of the pending writ appeals expeditiously so the statutory inquiry can be completed and elections held at the earliest.