The Supreme Court of India has asked the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and its affiliated state associations to explain why they should not come under the National Sports Governance (NSG) Act, 2025. The court raised the issue while hearing applications related to cricket administration.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, issued the order on Tuesday. The court also expressed concern over the long-running litigation surrounding cricket administration and sought responses from the BCCI and state associations.
Supreme Court Seeks Alternative to Long-Running BCCI Litigation
The Supreme Court has overseen BCCI administration since 2014, when it took up reforms based on the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. The court later approved the BCCI’s constitution in 2018 while allowing changes to office-bearer tenure and cooling-off rules in 2022.
However, applications from state associations and their members have continued to reach the apex court. Many of these cases involve requests for changes to association constitutions or disputes between rival factions over the control of cricket bodies.
The sports ministry notified new rules under the NSG Act in May 2026. The legislation provides for a National Sports Board to oversee governance as well as financial and ethical standards in national sports bodies. It also includes provisions for elections, office-bearer terms, and dispute resolution.
If the BCCI and state associations agree to come under the Act, pending cases concerning their administration could move from the Supreme Court to the sports tribunal. This could reduce the court’s workload while giving cricket bodies a statutory forum for resolving disputes.
BCCI Seeks to Retain Its Autonomous Status
The BCCI has maintained that it is an autonomous private body and has resisted being treated like a National Sports Federation. It is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and does not receive government funding.
Board has also argued that cricket has not been formally notified as a “designated sport” under the NSG Act. The issue could therefore become central to the court’s decision on whether the new legislation applies to the BCCI and its state affiliates.
The two frameworks also differ on several administrative rules. The BCCI Constitution follows strict conflict-of-interest provisions, including the “One Post, One Person” principle. The NSG Act offers more flexibility in this area, which has created uncertainty for some state associations.
The Odisha Cricket Association is among the bodies that have delayed its election process while the implications of the new sports framework are being considered.
BCCI Constitution and NSG Act Differ on Tenure Rules
Tenure and cooling-off provisions are another major point of difference. Under the BCCI Constitution amended in 2022, an administrator can serve two consecutive terms, or six years, at the state level before moving to the national level.
After two consecutive terms at the BCCI level, a three-year cooling-off period applies. The NSG Act allows administrators to serve up to three consecutive terms, with a maximum of 12 years across executive positions before a cooling-off period becomes mandatory.
Supreme Court will now consider whether the BCCI and its state associations should continue under their existing constitutional framework or come under the statutory sports governance system.
Also read: BCCI signs Campa Cola, ChatGPT and SBI Life as associate partners for Team India matches
