Bombay high court stays maharashtra cricket association election over hot haste induction of new members | Mumbai News

MUMBAI: “The manner in which the entire process of admission of new members was undertaken gives a prima facie impression that everything was done in a hot haste,” and the court cannot adopt a “hands-off approach” and allow the election scheduled on January 6 to continue, said the Bombay High Court in its reasons to stay Tuesday’s election to the apex council of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA).The HC on Monday directed the electoral officer for MCA not to proceed with the election process in whatsoever manner without prior court nod, and adjourned a batch of petitions challenging the poll after a “last minute” “illegal” addition on December 29 of almost 400 new voter-members, including MCA President and NCP (SP) MLA Rohit Pawar’s father-in-law, wife, and another relative, taking the count to 570.Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, in the reasoned order made available on Tuesday morning, as stated while delivering the operative order on Monday, said there were prima facie reasons to interfere with the election process at the MCA.The HC noted, “On 31 October 2025, a report was submitted by a one-man committee of a former Judge of the High Court. (The HC order does not name the former HC Judge.) In that report, the committee accepted the application for admission to the MCA by 397 members and rejected 48 applications. This report was laid before the apex body, which approved the same, and on the same day, the AGM purportedly resolved to approve new members in the MCA.”The HC thus termed the process as “hot haste” and said the “HC should not permit the illegality to be perpetuated”. Holding that an “election petition” cannot be deemed as the only remedy for those aggrieved once the election process is initiated, the HC said it is “not in public interest” that the court should permit the legal wrangle to go on unabated.If the election scheduled on January 6 is not stopped, petitioners would suffer irreparable loss, while MCA would not be put to any prejudice, the HC interim order stressed.The HC, acknowledging the submissions of senior counsel Vishwajeet Sawant for the Latur Cricket Association, who said no details of new members were shared on the website or with members, observed that “By doing so, the MCA has deprived and denied the members of the MCA who intended to contest the elections. The preparation of voters list is an integral part of the election process. 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 MCA, represented by senior counsel AM Singhvi, argued the process was transparent, and the real reason members and others challenged it was to ensure an administrator gets appointed if the election is not held on time. He also contended there were restrictions on HC power to interfere with the election process once it has begun and, in fact, is at the fag end.The HC said, “By merely saying that there is restriction on the powers of the High Court to interdict the election process, the (MCA) cannot overcome the rigours of the rules of natural justice and the mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court is entitled to examine the decision-making process as to how about 400 new members were inducted in the MCA under different category in the face of the allegations of illegality, arbitrariness and nepotism.”The view taken by the electoral officer in his order dated 29 December 2025 prima facie seemed to be not correct, the HC observed, noting it lacked any mention of whether MCA was uploading the minutes of meetings on its website or providing them to members, as argued by the petitioners.For the various petitioners, including the lead petition by Kedar Jadhav, an international cricketer, senior counsel Vineet Naik, Venkatesh Dhond, and Vishwajeet Sawant, as well as counsel Abhinav Chandrachud and advocates Sukand Kulkarni, Rohan Kelkar, and Janay Jain appeared and stressed on the aim and objectives of the MCA being to promote cricket. For MCA CEO, senior counsel Sharan Jagtiani appeared; for the electoral officer, senior counsel Huzefa Ahamadi appeared; and for the State govt, pleader Neha Bhide appeared with AGP Kavita Solunkhe. The HC heard the matter at length in the first and second half on Monday.The objects and purposes of MCA provide a clear insight into the activities and area of operation of MCA, which must relate to the game of cricket, said the HC, and added, “This is a debatable issue that by mere donation of funds one can become a life member of the MCA. Subject to final decision on this aspect, we are of a prima facie opinion that large-scale admission of new members just 2 months prior to publication of the schedule of the elections raises a serious question on the procedure adopted by the MCA for admitting about 400 new members.”The bench found “substance in the submission that the proceedings of the AGM, Special General Body and Apex Council were not published and the minutes of the meetings were not supplied to the members.”The HC also observed that the members did not get sufficient opportunity to object to the addition of so many members at one go. As the previous trends, voter count decreased since the last polls held in 2019, and while it may not indicate a steady decline, “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 addition of members was by show of hands. The HC also noted Chandrachud’s and Dhond’s submission that the record showed “there was no clear agenda for approving the admission of new members.” Petitioners argued that any addition of new members requires first a change in the MCA constitution.Singhvi argued that in the past, when members were added, there was no change in the constitution of MCA and hence the additions in December also were legal and valid. The HC said, “A few instances in the past when new members were inducted is not a ground to hold that the proceedings under challenge were legal and valid.”Thus, the HC said it prima facie concluded that it needs to intervene and stay the election till the next date and seek reply from the MCA. The reply is to be filed by February 3, and the HC will hear the matter next on February 4.