© 2026 Copyright Lifease Solutions LLP. All rights reserved.
Popular Series
Live Cricket Score
NEWS
The Supreme Court has asked the BCCI and India's state cricket associations to explain why they should not be governed by the National Sports Governance Act, 2025
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana put the question on Tuesday while hearing applications brought by cricket bodies, and asked counsel for the BCCI and the state units to take instructions on it.
The judges wanted to know why the terms and conditions of service of office bearers at the board and its affiliates should not fall under the 2025 Act, which is now in force.
The board's lawyers are expected to state its position shortly. BCCI officials were not immediately available for comment, and the question lands a little over a week before the board's annual general meeting in Mumbai on September 18.
The applications were filed by state associations, and the hearing turned on how office bearers are appointed and how long they may serve.
The Act creates a statutory regulator and a recognition authority covering national sports bodies, and sets conditions those bodies must meet to be recognised.
What the court has asked is whether cricket's administrators sit inside that framework or outside it.
The BCCI's long-standing position is that it receives no government grants and should not therefore come under the Act. Unlike most national federations in India, it funds itself commercially rather than from the public purse.
The board has also objected to the clause placing national sports bodies under a statutory regulator, a provision it has opposed since the legislation was drafted.
In a separate case concerning the election of the Odisha Cricket Association, the board told the Odisha High Court that the statute cannot yet reach it.
"…even though the National Sports Governance Act 2025 has been enacted, the sport of cricket has not been notified as a designated sport for the National Sports Governance Act to apply," the BCCI submitted in that affidavit.
The submission did not set out why the board opposes the Act in principle, only why it considers the law inapplicable as things stand.
Indian cricket is presently run under a constitution the Supreme Court itself approved, drawn from the recommendations of a committee headed by former Chief Justice RM Lodha.
Under the amended version, an office bearer may serve two consecutive terms at state level and two at the board before a three-year cooling-off period applies.
In September 2022 the court allowed a modification permitting a continuous tenure of 12 years — six years in a state association and six at the BCCI — before that cooling-off period is triggered.
That framework governs tenure today, which is why the bench's question about the terms of service of office bearers goes to the heart of how the board is run.
The AGM on September 18 is expected to take up the subject, alongside elections to two IPL Governing Council positions.
IPL chairman Arun Singh Dhumal, of Himachal Pradesh, and Mizoram's Khairul Jamal Majumdar have filed nominations from the general body and are set to be re-elected.
Separately, BCCI electoral officer AK Joti has barred the Baroda Cricket Association and the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association from the meeting, with nominated representatives Pranav Amin and Desh Rattan Dubey ruled out of the process.
What the BCCI tells the bench will set the terms of a longer argument over whether Indian cricket's administration answers to the new statute or to the constitution the Supreme Court itself approved.
Catch the match live updates, highlights, and full match coverage on CricRadio. Get fast, accurate, and ad-free updates throughout the game. Download the CricRadio app from the Play Store to stay connected. You can also get the live scores of cricket series directly on the CricRadio website for real-time coverage.
#India
