Legal Provisions Involved: Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, Article 19(1)(c), 38, 39(b) of the Indian Constitution and National Sports Development Code, 2011.
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Facts
The appellant, challenged the Madras High Court’s order applying directions given in S. Nithya v. Union of India (2022) in the governance of District Cricket Association. The cricket club sought membership, voting rights, and tournament participation, whilst respondent no. 2 sought free and fair elections and constitutional amendments.
Key Legal Provisions
Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, Article 19(1)(c), 38, 39(b) of the Indian Constitution and National Sports Development Code, 2011.
Issues Raised
- Whether S. Nithya directions on sports governance apply to cricket associations
- Whether the BCCI Constitution mandates district associations to restructure their bye-laws.
Arguments of the case
Appellant argued that the directions given in S. Nithya concerned athletics governance and cannot apply to cricket, which is governed by BCCI framework. The Respondents argued that the Appellant must amend its Constitution in conformity with BCCI’s Constitution given cricket’s pyramidical structure.
Judgement
The Supreme Court clarified that BCCI’s Constitution does not mandate district associations to model their regulations on exact BCCI lines. However, the Court emphasised that district associations should voluntarily adopt transparency, good governance, and exclusion of conflicts of interest.
Click here to VIEW the judgement.
