The Supreme Court asked the BCCI on Tuesday to explain why it and its state associations should not fall under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. The question landed on the same day the board’s own electoral officer barred two state associations from its upcoming Annual General Meeting for governance failures.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, sitting with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, directed BCCI’s lawyers to respond.
“Take instructions on why the terms and conditions of service of their office bearers be not governed by the 2025 Act which is now in force.”
Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant, September 9, 2026
The timing is difficult for the BCCI. Nine days from now, on September 18, the board holds its 95th AGM in Mumbai. Two of its member associations will not be in the room.
BCCI updates for the day:
🚨 The Supreme Court has asked the BCCI to explain why it and the state associations should not come under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025.
🚨 Arun Singh Dhumal of Himachal Pradesh and Mizoram’s Khairul Jamal Majumdar have filed their… pic.twitter.com/4SQR2mBa0i
— Cricbuzz (@cricbuzz) September 9, 2026
The NSG Act was passed by Lok Sabha on August 11, 2025, cleared Rajya Sabha the next day, and received Presidential Assent on August 18, 2025. It partially commenced on December 31, 2025. The government notified its rules in January 2026.
The Act creates a National Sports Board with oversight powers over national sports bodies. It caps executive committees at 15 members, requires at least two athletes of outstanding merit, two athlete representatives, and four women on each committee. It mandates ethics committees, dispute resolution panels, and CAG-audited accounts.
The BCCI’s defence is procedural. In an affidavit approved by Secretary Devajit Saikia and filed in the Odisha High Court, the board stated: “It is submitted that even though the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 has been enacted, the sport of cricket has not been notified as a designated sport.”
Sports bodies only fall under the Act’s provisions once their sport is officially “designated” by the central government. Cricket has not been designated yet. The BCCI also maintains it is a private autonomous body, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, that receives no government funding.
The Supreme Court has overseen BCCI administration since 2014, when it constituted the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee to recommend structural reforms. The court approved the BCCI’s constitution in 2018. In 2022, it allowed office bearers up to 12 continuous years of service, six at state level and six at the BCCI, before a mandatory three-year cooling-off period.
Now the court is asking whether that court-supervised framework should give way to the parliamentary one.
BCA and JKCA Locked Out
Electoral Officer AK Joti barred the Baroda Cricket Association and the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association from participating in the September 18 AGM. Both associations lose their vote and their voice at the table.
The JKCA case is the more detailed rejection. Joti issued a seven-page order rejecting Desh Rattan Dubey’s nomination as the association’s representative.
“The JKCA nomination was not validly supported by the requisite resolution of the appropriate appointing authority.”
AK Joti, BCCI Electoral Officer, September 9, 2026
The Apex Council that nominated Dubey on August 30 lacks legal standing. An Additional District Judge in Srinagar had stayed the council’s operations on June 6. The stay was never challenged or overturned.
Joti found the council “at abeyance,” making its resolution legally void. JKCA president Javid Ahmad Kitab and Sudershan Mehta had filed objections against Dubey’s nomination. Dubey also faces pending conflict-of-interest cases, a Crime Branch investigation concerning alleged fraudulent registration, and a 100 crore damages suit.
The Baroda situation traces back to February 2026. The Gujarat High Court disqualified four candidates from BCA’s internal elections over nine-year tenure cap violations. Justice Niral Mehta described the BCA’s handling of its own electoral process as “a glaring instance of non-exercise of powers by the Electoral Officer.” The governance dispute left BCA unable to produce a validly nominated representative for the BCCI AGM.
On the same day both associations were locked out, Arun Singh Dhumal of Himachal Pradesh and Khairul Jamal Majumdar of Mizoram filed their nominations for the two elected General Body seats on the IPL Governing Council. Both are set to be re-elected without opposition.
Dhumal is the current IPL Governing Council Chairman. The seven-member body also includes BCCI Secretary Devajit Saikia, Treasurer Raghuram Bhat, the BCCI CEO, an Indian Cricketers’ Association representative, and a CAG nominee. Under BCCI Constitution Rule 28, elected members serve one-year terms and stand for annual election.
Two people filing for two seats, with no competition, tells its own story about how power circulates inside the BCCI.
The 95th AGM at 11:30 AM in Mumbai carries a packed agenda beyond the IPL council elections. The board will confirm the minutes of the 94th AGM held on September 28, 2025, where Mithun Manhas was elected the 37th BCCI president.
Other items include the audited accounts for the 2025-26 financial year, the annual budget for 2026-27, appointment of auditors, election of an Ombudsman and Ethics Officer, and appointments to the Junior Cricket Committee, Standing Committees, Cricket Committees, and Umpire Committee. The board will also vote on granting Associate Membership to the Cricket Association of Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
Insider Read
The “designated sport” argument is a countdown, not a shield. Everyone inside Indian cricket administration understands this.
The NSG Act gives the central government the power to designate any sport at any time. Cricket, the richest and most visible sport in the country, will be designated when the government decides to do it. The BCCI’s procedural defence buys time. It does not buy exemption. The real question is not whether cricket will come under the Act. It is what the BCCI is doing with the time it has before that happens. And the answer, based on the state of its own member associations, is not enough. When two affiliates cannot even produce legally valid representatives for the AGM because of court orders against their own governance, the argument that external oversight is unnecessary writes its own rebuttal.
Also Read:
- Vikrant Gupta on BCCI Power Vacuum After Jay Shah
- Kapil Dev on Domestic Cricket and BCCI
- Ashwin on BCCI Rule for Chief Selector
- Ryan ten Doeschate, T Dilip Contracts Under BCCI and Saikia
