The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to lift the stay imposed by the Bombay High Court on the Apex Council elections of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA), making strong observations against the cricket body and its recent actions.
Top court upholds High Court order
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, said the High Court’s interim injunction was justified and declined to interfere at this stage.
“Injunction is justified. They (Bombay High Court) stopped you from committing bigger fraud! Do not invite more comments from us,” the Supreme Court observed, Live Law and Bar & Bench report.
Matter pending before High Court
The Bench noted that the matter is currently pending before the Bombay High Court and made it clear that MCA should pursue its arguments there. “Matter is pending before the High Court. You can go and argue before the High Court,” the court said.
Background of the dispute
The Supreme Court was hearing MCA’s appeal against the Bombay High Court’s interim order dated January 6, by which the High Court had stayed the Apex Council elections.
The High Court had flagged serious concerns over the legality, fairness and transparency of the election process, particularly the large-scale induction of new members into the MCA general body shortly before the polls.
Concerns over new memberships
The High Court had noted that around 400 new members were admitted barely two months before the election schedule was published on December 23, 2025. It formed a prima facie view that the petitioners were not given an adequate opportunity to raise objections to the admission of such a large number of members and their inclusion in the voters’ list.
“Admission of about 400 new members would certainly change the whole complexion and, to a certain extent, the Constitution of the MCA in certain aspects,” the High Court had observed.
Political ramifications
The interim order was seen as a setback for the incumbent MCA President and NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) MLA Rohit Pawar.
Petitions before the High Court
The petitions before the High Court were filed by former Indian cricketer Kedar Jadhav, the Latur District Cricket Association, Anant Nilkanth Mate, a life member of MCA, and Shikshana Prasarak Mandali’s Sir Parashurambhau College, Pune.
In his plea, Jadhav alleged that the newly added members included close relatives of Rohit Pawar, including his wife Kuntee Pawar and father-in-law Satish Magar, as well as NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) MP Supriya Sule’s daughter Revati, Baramati Agro’s Subhash Gulave, and over 30 NCP leaders.
The plea claimed that the names were added “all of a sudden, without following due process of law,” and alleged that the list “smirks of building dynasties.”
Supreme Court hearing
After the High Court stayed the elections, MCA approached the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for MCA, argued that the injunction was “illegal.” However, the top court refused to entertain the appeal and reiterated that MCA should argue the matter before the High Court.
Strong oral observations
During the hearing, the Supreme Court also made strong oral observations on the functioning of the MCA. Referring to the sudden increase in membership, the Chief Justice said, “From 1986 to 2023, you had 164 members, and from 2023 onwards, you made a bumper draw?” He questioned the credentials of the newly inducted members and remarked, “Who are you bringing? Those who do not even know the game of cricket do not even know how to handle a bat. Don’t make us express our sentiments too much on what is happening.”
Need for expert representation
The court stressed the need for experienced and retired cricketers to be part of cricket associations to ensure expert input. “This is one country where outstanding cricketers are there… if you had opened 300 memberships, you would have provided it to all those renowned cricketers,” the Chief Justice observed.
Role of Solicitor General
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Kedar Jadhav, pointed out that the original writ petition before the High Court was filed by an international cricketer. The Bench also flagged the need for an independent tribunal for all sports associations and said, “Cricket is not because of him (authorities), it is because of the cricketers.”
Also Watch:
Next steps
Noting that the matter was listed before the High Court the next day, the Supreme Court said all contentions should be raised there and requested the High Court to decide the issue expeditiously. The Bench also allowed the petitioners to withdraw their plea from the Supreme Court and seek appropriate relief before the High Court in accordance with law.
