Bombay High Court: In writ petitions challenging the election programme of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (‘MCA’) published on 23-12-2025, the Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar*, CJ and Gautam A. Ankhad, J., held that largescale admission of about 400 new members immediately before elections raised serious questions on legality and fairness. The Court emphasised that the purity of elections requires real opportunity to stakeholders to raise objections and observed that the process adopted was prima facie arbitrary and violative of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court directed that the elections scheduled on 06-01-2026 shall not proceed without leave of the Court.
Background:
The petitions challenged the draft voters list dated 25-12-2025 and the final list dated 29-12-2025, alleging illegal and arbitrary inclusion of about 400 new members. It was contended that the Chief Executive Officer lacked requisite management experience under Rule 23(1) of the Rules and Regulations of the MCA, that no notice was served for convening a general body meeting, and that prior permission of the Charity Commissioner was not taken before inducting new members.
The petitioners argued that admission of such a large number of members amounted to changing the Constitution of the MCA, that businessmen and relatives of office bearers were inducted who had nothing to do with cricket, and that deadlines fixed on a bank holiday deprived members of an effective opportunity to raise objections.
On the other hand, the respondents submitted that admission of members within existing categories did not amount to constitutional amendment, that objections lacked substantive particulars, and that the election process once started could not be stayed. It was argued that newly inducted members had made substantial contributions to cricket, and scrutiny was conducted by a former Judge of the Court who approved 397 applications and rejected 48.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the manner in which the entire process of admission of new members has been undertaken gives a prima-facie impression that everything was done in a hot haste. It was noted that existing members had no opportunity to raise objections, that minutes of meetings were not provided, and that the order of the Electoral Officer rejecting objections prima-facie seemed not correct.
The Court observed that largescale admission of new members just two 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. It was highlighted that the preparation of the voters list is an integral part of the election process and purity of election is maintained not only by showing compliance of rules but by providing real opportunity to stakeholders to raise objections. The Court noted that admission of about 400 new members would certainly change the whole complexion and to a certain extent the Constitution of the MCA.
The Court further observed that merely stating there is restriction on the powers of the High Court to interdict the election process cannot overcome the rigors of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution. It was stressed that the Court is entitled to examine the decision-making process, particularly as to how about 400 new members were inducted in the MCA under different categories, in the face of allegations of illegality, arbitrariness, and nepotism. The Court noted that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the petitioners and that irreparable loss would be caused if the elections were permitted to proceed.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Electoral Officer not to proceed with the elections scheduled on 06-01-2026 until further orders, holding that interference was necessary to prevent perpetuation of illegality and to protect public interest.
[Kedar Mahadeo Jadhav v. Maharashtra Cricket Association, Writ Petition No. 43 of 2026, decided on 05-01-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Vineet Naik, Vishwajeet Sawant, Venkatesh Dhond, Abhinav Chandrachud
For the Respondents: Huzefa Ahmadi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sharan Jagtiani, Neha Bhide
Buy Constitution of India HERE
