The Bombay High Court has put a decisive halt to the upcoming election for the apex council of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA), scheduled for January 6. The court's intervention came after it found prima facie evidence of irregularities in the admission of nearly 400 new members just before the polls.
Court Slams 'Hot Haste' in Member Admissions
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad issued a reasoned order, stating the process was conducted in a manner that gives a "prima facie impression that everything was done in a hot haste." The bench emphasized that it cannot adopt a "hands-off approach" and allow the election to proceed under such circumstances.
The controversy centers on a "last minute" addition on December 29, 2025, of approximately 397 new voter-members. This sudden influx, which included the father-in-law, wife, and another relative of MCA President and NCP (SP) MLA Rohit Pawar, swelled the total voter count to 570. The court noted that this large-scale admission occurred just two months before the election schedule was published, raising serious procedural questions.
Transparency and Natural Justice Concerns
The High Court pointed to several critical lapses in the process. It observed that the MCA failed to share details of the new members on its website or with existing members, thereby depriving those intending to contest the elections of a real opportunity to raise objections. "The purity of election is maintained not only by showing compliance of the rules, but there must be real opportunity to all the stakeholders to raise their objection," the order stated.
The bench found substance in the petitioners' arguments that minutes of the AGM, Special General Body, and Apex Council meetings were not published or supplied. Furthermore, the record indicated "there was no clear agenda for approving the admission of new members." The court asserted that merely citing restrictions on judicial interference in election processes cannot override the principles of natural justice and the constitutional mandate of Article 14.
Legal Arguments and Court's Prima Facie View
The MCA, represented by senior counsel AM Singhvi, defended the process as transparent. Singhvi argued that the real motive behind the petitions was to get an administrator appointed if the election was delayed. He also contended that the High Court's power to intervene was restricted once the election process, now at its "fag end," had begun.
However, the court rejected this, stating it is entitled to examine the decision-making process amid allegations of "illegality, arbitrariness and nepotism." It also questioned the basis of admitting members, noting that the MCA's objectives relate to promoting cricket, and "by mere donation of funds one can become a life member" is a debatable issue.
The court highlighted that the voter count had decreased since the last polls in 2019, and the admission of about 400 new members "would certainly change the whole complexion and to a certain extent the Constitution of the MCA." It also noted that past instances of adding members did not justify the current challenged proceedings.
The interim order stressed that if the January 6 election was not stopped, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss, while the MCA would not face any prejudice. The court has directed the MCA to file its reply by February 3, 2025, and will hear the matter next on February 4, 2025. Until then, the electoral officer is barred from proceeding with the election in any manner without prior court permission.
