Supreme Court Questions BCCI Exclusion from National Sports Governance Act, 2025-What It Means for Indian Sports. The Supreme Court has asked BCCI and State Cricket Associations why the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 should not apply to them. An analysis of the case, the new sports law and its wider impact on sports bodies in India.
Supreme Court Raises an Important Question on BCCI Governance
The Supreme Court of India has raised a question that could significantly change the legal framework governing cricket administration in India: Why should the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and its State Cricket Associations not be governed by the National Sports Governance Act, 2025?
On 8 September 2026, a three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana sought responses from the BCCI and its State affiliates on this issue. The development arose in the long-running proceedings concerning the governance and functioning of the BCCI.
The proceedings form part of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 and connected applications.
This is the same litigation through which the Supreme Court has, over the years, supervised major structural reforms in Indian cricket administration, including reforms arising from the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. The identity and case number of the continuing proceedings are also reflected in recent Supreme Court litigation concerning the BCCI.
Importantly, the Supreme Court has not yet finally held that the National Sports Governance Act automatically applies to the BCCI. At this stage, it has raised the question and called upon the BCCI and State bodies to respond. That distinction is legally important.
Why Has the Supreme Court Raised This Issue? The background is almost twelve years of continuing litigation concerning cricket administration. The Supreme Court has repeatedly had to deal with applications involving amendments to constitutions of cricket associations, tenure of office-bearers and disputes between competing groups seeking control over State cricket bodies.
The present question appears to be aimed at a larger institutional solution, if Parliament has now created a statutory governance and dispute-resolution framework for sports, should cricket governance disputes continue to require repeated intervention by the Supreme Court? That question goes beyond cricket. It concerns the relationship between autonomy of sports associations, statutory regulation, transparency and judicial supervision.
What Is the National Sports Governance Act, 2025?
The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (Act No. 25 of 2025) received assent on 18 August 2025.
Its stated objectives include promotion and development of sports, welfare of sportspersons, ethical practices, good governance, fair play and an effective system for resolving sports grievances and disputes. The Act expressly recognises that national sports governing bodies perform important public functions and therefore should conduct their affairs in an open, fair and transparent manner.
The statutory framework is supplemented by the National Sports Governance (National Sports Bodies) Rules, 2026. The Rules address matters such as composition of governing bodies, elections, disqualification, representation of sportspersons and registration of affiliate units. The significance of the new regime is that sports governance in India is moving from a system heavily dependent upon executive guidelines, individual federation constitutions and court directions towards a more structured statutory framework.
What Could Change If the Act Applies to BCCI?
Bringing the BCCI within the statutory sports-governance framework could have far-reaching consequences.
1. BCCI Governance Could Become More Statutorily Regulated
For years, BCCI governance has been shaped by its own constitution together with Supreme Court directions and the Lodha Committee reforms. Application of the 2025 Act could introduce another important layer- Parliamentary legislation. Where applicable, BCCI’s internal governance would therefore have to operate consistently with the statutory requirements rather than depending predominantly upon its constitution and successive court orders.
2. State Cricket Associations Could Also Be Affected
The Supreme Court’s question is significant because it is not confined to the BCCI. It expressly extends to State Cricket Associations. This could potentially affect their constitutions, elections, office-bearers, tenure provisions, affiliation arrangements and governance standards, depending upon how the Act and Rules are ultimately held to apply.
3. Sports Disputes Could Move Away From Regular Courts
One of the important features of the National Sports Governance Act is the creation of a specialised framework for resolving sports disputes. The Act provides for a National Sports Tribunal, headed by a person who is or has been a Supreme Court Judge or Chief Justice of a High Court, with other members having expertise in areas including sports administration and law. This assumes particular significance in the BCCI proceedings. If cricket bodies and their disputes are brought within the statutory framework, appropriate disputes may eventually be dealt with through the specialised mechanism contemplated by Parliament instead of repeatedly reaching constitutional courts at the first instance. The exact jurisdictional consequences, however, will depend upon the applicable statutory provisions, notifications and the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling.
From Lodha Committee Reforms to a Parliamentary Sports Law
The present development must be understood against the history of BCCI reforms. The litigation began in 2014 and ultimately resulted in extensive judicial scrutiny of cricket administration. The recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee led to substantial restructuring of the BCCI’s governance framework. The Supreme Court-approved constitution addressed issues including eligibility and tenure of office-bearers and cooling-off requirements. Subsequent modifications were also considered by the Supreme Court. The enactment of the National Sports Governance Act creates a fundamentally different situation. Earlier, much of the reform process was driven through judicial intervention. Parliament has now enacted legislation specifically dealing with sports governance.
The question therefore naturally arises:
Should a major national sports governing institution continue to operate principally under a court-supervised framework when Parliament has enacted a general statutory framework for sports governance? That appears to be the larger institutional issue behind the Supreme Court’s latest intervention.
The Question of BCCI’s Autonomy
BCCI has historically occupied an unusual position in Indian law. It is not a conventional government department. At the same time, the administration of cricket has enormous public importance, and the BCCI exercises extensive control over organised cricket in India. Earlier judicial proceedings have recognised the peculiar nature of BCCI’s functions. The Supreme Court has previously considered the fact that the team selected through the BCCI represents India internationally and that no competing body exercises comparable control over organised Indian cricket.
This creates the central legal tension:
How much autonomy should a private sports association enjoy when it effectively controls a sport of enormous national importance? The National Sports Governance Act itself attempts to balance these competing considerations. Its preamble recognises both the importance of open, fair and transparent governance and the principle of autonomy of sports governing bodies. Therefore, the issue should not simply be viewed as “government control versus BCCI autonomy.” The more precise legal question is how statutory accountability can coexist with legitimate institutional autonomy.
Other Sports Federations Are Already Moving Towards the New Regime
The issue is not confined to cricket. Courts have already been considering the impact of the National Sports Governance Act and the 2026 Rules upon other sporting bodies. For example, in All India Tennis Association v. Somdev Kishore Devvarman, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4824, the Delhi High Court dealt with amendment of AITA’s constitution and fresh elections in accordance with the new statutory framework. More recently, in litigation concerning the All India Carrom Federation, the Delhi High Court observed that compliance with the National Sports Governance Act and Rules would be required for recognition as a National Sports Federation.
The Supreme Court itself has also dealt with the new statutory framework in sports-related proceedings. In an October 2025 order concerning the All India Football Federation, the Court expressly clarified that constitutional provisions under consideration would remain subject to the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 and subordinate legislation framed under it. These developments show a wider movement towards a common statutory governance structure for Indian sports.
Why This Case Is Important Beyond Cricket
The ultimate judgment could have implications far beyond BCCI. If the Supreme Court clarifies the relationship between existing court-supervised sports constitutions and the National Sports Governance Act, it could provide guidance for National Sports Federations, State associations, athletes, administrators and sports lawyers across the country.
Three principles are particularly important.
First, sports autonomy cannot necessarily mean absence of accountability. Sports organisations may enjoy functional independence while still being required to meet standards of transparency, fair elections and ethical administration.
Second, sports disputes require specialised and speedy resolution. Long-running litigation can adversely affect elections, selections, athletes and administration. A specialised statutory dispute-resolution system may therefore reduce dependence upon repeated High Court and Supreme Court intervention.
Third, uniform governance standards can reduce internal disputes. Clear statutory rules relating to elections, eligibility, tenure and institutional accountability may reduce factional litigation within sports bodies.
What Happens Next?
For the moment, the Supreme Court has sought the response of the BCCI and its State associations. Therefore, it would be premature to say that the Court has already brought the BCCI under the National Sports Governance Act.
The next stage will be important because the Court may have to examine the precise statutory status of BCCI and its affiliates and the interaction between the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, the 2026 Rules, the BCCI Constitution and earlier Supreme Court directions. The resulting decision could become one of the most important judgments on sports administration after the Lodha Committee era.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s question, why should the National Sports Governance Act not apply to the BCCI and State Cricket Associations? raises a much larger issue about the future of sports administration in India. For more than a decade, the Supreme Court has played an exceptional role in restructuring cricket governance. Parliament has now enacted a dedicated law dealing with sports governance, institutional accountability, elections and dispute resolution. The next logical legal question is whether Indian cricket should become part of that statutory system.
Whatever the eventual answer, the proceedings in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors., C.A. No. 4235/2014 may mark the beginning of a new phase from court-driven reform of cricket administration to statute-based sports governance in India.
About the Author
Ajit Kakkar is a practising Advocate and a retired Wing Commander of the Indian Air Force. He appears before the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court, the Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench), the Central Administrative Tribunal. He is National-level sportsperson and international sports administrator, he was Director at Commonwealth Games Delhi 2010, Military World Games 2007, South Asian Games Dhaka 2010, and Partille Cup Sweden 2011. MBA in Sports Management, Practicing Sports Law.