Supreme Court Backs Bombay High Court's Stay on Maharashtra Cricket Association Elections
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday firmly declined to intervene in the Bombay High Court's interim stay order on the election process for the apex council of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA). In a significant development, the apex court orally observed that the High Court's injunction was "justified" as it prevented the MCA from "committing bigger fraud." This decision represents a major setback for the current MCA leadership, including its president, Nationalist Congress Party (SP) MLA Rohit Pawar.
Court Directs MCA to Present Case Before Bombay High Court
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, directed the Maharashtra Cricket Association to argue its case before the Bombay High Court. The matter is likely to be heard on February 4, 2026. The bench emphasized that since the issue was already pending before the High Court, the appropriate forum for arguments remained there.
When senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the MCA, termed the High Court's injunction as "illegal," the Supreme Court bench responded sharply. "Injunction is justified. They (HC) stopped you from committing bigger fraud. Do not invite more comments from us," the bench remarked orally, indicating strong disapproval of the MCA's election process.
Background of the Bombay High Court's Stay Order
The Bombay High Court, on January 5, 2026, had ordered authorities to halt the elections to the MCA apex council, which were scheduled for January 6. This interim stay came while hearing petitions, including one filed by former Indian cricketer and BJP functionary Kedar Jadhav. The petitioners had raised serious concerns about the election process, labeling it as "illegal" and highlighting what they described as the "erroneous" inclusion of more than 400 voters in the draft voter list.
According to the plea, the newly added members included:
- Rohit Pawar's wife, Kunti Pawar
- His father-in-law, Satish Magar
- NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule's daughter, Revati
- Baramati Agro's Subhash Gulave
- Over 30 NCP leaders
A bench of Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad had observed that "no sufficient opportunity was given" to the petitioners to raise objections regarding the admission of these new members. The court noted that this inclusion would "certainly change the whole complexion" of the issue and that the process appeared to have been undertaken "in a hot haste."
Supreme Court Questions Inclusion of Non-Cricketers
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant raised pointed questions about the composition of the voter list. Referring to the inclusion of new members, he orally remarked, "This is a country which produced outstanding cricketers who have retired. We would have let this be if you had some of them on this list, but you have people who don't even know how to hold a bat. Don't make us say more."
The CJI further emphasized the importance of cricketers in managing cricket associations. "Who is the association for if not the cricketers?" he asked, highlighting that former international cricketers like Kedar Jadhav deserved respect and a role in handling the affairs of the cricket association. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state government, supported this by noting that Jadhav was indeed a former international cricketer.
MCA's Arguments and Supreme Court's Final Directions
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued on behalf of the MCA that the High Court had intervened just one day before the scheduled election, despite past Supreme Court verdicts which generally discourage judicial interference once the election process has commenced. He also expressed concerns that the petitions in the High Court were aimed at stalling the elections and potentially installing an administrator for the MCA, which he argued should not be permitted.
However, the Supreme Court remained unconvinced by these arguments. The bench noted that all parties were at liberty to raise their contentions before the Bombay High Court. It directed the High Court to endeavor to expedite the decision on the matter while considering all pleas, including any requests for modification of interim orders. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the MCA's Special Leave Petition as withdrawn, thereby upholding the Bombay High Court's authority in this case.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring transparency and integrity in the administration of sports bodies, particularly in cricket, which holds a special place in India's sporting landscape. The focus now shifts to the Bombay High Court's hearing scheduled for February 4, where the future of the Maharashtra Cricket Association's leadership will be further deliberated.
