Supreme Court pushes BCCI towards NSG Act coverage

NEW DELHI: Frustrated with a decade of ongoing litigation in cricket administration, the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Board of Control for Cricket in India and state associations why they should not be brought under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana passed a cryptic order at the fag-end of the day’s proceedings, seeking responses from the BCCI and its state affiliates on why the NSG Act should not govern them.

The court’s intervention comes 12 years after it took up reforms in the world’s richest cricket organisation. The original petition filed by BCCI in 2014 led to the framing of its constitution in August 2018 on the recommendations of the Justice R M Lodha committee. Even after the Supreme Court permitted significant amendments to the BCCI constitution in September 2022 relating to consecutive terms of office bearers and cooling-off period norms, applications kept coming.

Multiple applications by different state cricket associations and their members continue to be filed, seeking minor changes in constitutions or raising disputes arising from factionalism over control of cash-rich cricket bodies.

NSG Act and transfer to sports tribunal

In May this year, the sports ministry notified new rules under the NSG Act to improve management of sports bodies and adjudication of disputes.

If the BCCI and state cricket associations agree to be covered under the NSG Act and the Rules framed thereunder, all litigation pending before the Supreme Court relating to the functioning and management of cricket bodies would get transferred to the sports tribunal, easing a considerable load off the already overburdened top court.

The NSG Act and Rules mandate a National Sports Board as the central regulatory authority responsible for recognising national sports bodies and monitoring compliance with governance, financial and ethical standards. They also provide processes for transparent elections and tenure of elected office bearers.

The court has now sought the BCCI and state bodies’ response on the applicability of the Act.