The Supreme Court has held that the reform directions issued in S. Nithya mandating 75% representation of eminent sportspersons in sports bodies are not applicable to cricket associations.
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe clarified that district cricket associations are not required to amend their constitutions strictly in line with the Constitution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
The appeals were filed by the The Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association challenging a Madras High Court order that had extended the applicability of the S. Nithya rulings to the district-level cricket body.
The appeals arose from two writ proceedings before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
In the first matter, a cricket club sought membership and voting rights in the district association. While the club was permitted to participate in tournaments, the issue of voting rights was contested. Before the Supreme Court, the association stated it had no objection to granting voting rights to the club, narrowing the scope of dispute.
The second writ petition was filed by a former office-bearer who sought directions for conducting free and fair elections after preparation of a fresh voters’ list and for ensuring compliance with earlier High Court directions in S. Nithya v. Union of India and related proceedings concerning sports governance reforms.
The High Court had relied on S. Nithya to direct compliance with wide-ranging governance norms, including mandatory inclusion of eminent sportspersons in leadership roles and structural reforms in line with broader sports governance principles.
The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the directions issued in S. Nithya—including the requirement that 75% of members of sports associations be eminent sportspersons and that key posts be held exclusively by sportspersons—could be applied to cricket associations.
The Court held they could not.
It observed that S. Nithya arose in the context of athletics governance and was rooted in concerns specific to that discipline. By contrast, cricket governance is already governed by the binding framework laid down in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, in which the Supreme Court approved reforms in the BCCI’s structure.
The Bench noted that the BCCI judgment did not mandate 75% representation of eminent sportspersons in cricket bodies, nor did it require district associations to restrict leadership posts exclusively to those who had participated at State or national levels.
In the absence of such prescriptions in the BCCI ruling, the Court held that extending S. Nithya directions to cricket bodies would be legally untenable.
District Associations Not Bound to Mirror BCCI Constitution
Another major issue was whether district cricket associations must amend their constitutions to conform exactly to the BCCI Constitution.
Rejecting this contention, the Court relied on the reasoning in the BCCI judgment itself, which had clarified that while State Associations were required to bring their constitutions in conformity with BCCI’s Constitution, the internal composition of associations could not be forcibly altered in violation of constitutional protections under Article 19(1)(c).
The Court held that there was no judicial mandate requiring district cricket associations to replicate the BCCI Constitution in its entirety. Nor was any consensus or binding directive shown to exist that would compel such uniformity at the district level.
Accordingly, the direction of the High Court effectively requiring structural alignment was set aside.
Emphasis on Good Governance and Transparency
While granting relief to the district association, the Supreme Court did not shy away from emphasizing the need for reforms in sports governance.
The Bench observed that district associations must function with professionalism, transparency, and integrity. It stressed the importance of fair player selection processes, avoidance of conflicts of interest, and accountable financial management.
In evocative observations, the Court described sports as vital to national life, embodying constitutional values of fraternity and inclusiveness. It underlined that sporting facilities and opportunities are “material resources of the community” and should not become the preserve of a privileged few.
The Court also stressed that revenues from sporting events and media rights must be deployed to expand access to sport across social and economic strata.
Pending Proceedings and Partial Relief
The Court noted that proceedings concerning membership disputes and inquiries under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act were pending before statutory authorities and the High Court.
Given this, it refrained from commenting on proposed amendments suggested by the district association, including freezing the number of life members at 179, imposing a three-year voting embargo on newly inducted life members, removing the category of “family members” of life members from eligibility norms, and allowing broader representation to clubs and institutions.
The Supreme Court directed that pending proceedings be decided expeditiously to enable the conduct of elections at the earliest.
Conclusion
Allowing the appeals in part, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s reliance on S. Nithya insofar as it applied to cricket associations and clarified that district cricket bodies are not obligated to restructure their constitutions strictly in line with the BCCI framework.
Case Details
Case Title: The Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association Versus Anna Nagar Cricket Club & Anr. Etc.
Case No.: SLP (C) NO(S). 26653-26654 OF 2024
Date: 13/02/2026
