Supreme Court questions BCCI’s exclusion from National Sports Governance Act, seeks response

The Supreme Court has directed the Board of Control for Cricket in India and all affiliated state cricket associations to justify their exclusion from the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. The question was raised on September 8, 2026, during the hearing of applications brought by certain cricket bodies in the long-running BCCI matter.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana posed the question while hearing the applications. The bench additionally asked advocates appearing for the BCCI and the state cricket associations to obtain client instructions on a related point: whether the terms and conditions of service of their respective office bearers ought to be regulated under the 2025 legislation, which has already come into force.

The court's intervention signals that the bench is actively examining whether the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 should apply to the BCCI and its affiliated state bodies in the same manner it applies to other national sports federations. No substantive order has been passed at this stage, and the matter continues to remain pending before the Supreme Court.

What is the background to this Supreme Court proceeding?

The Supreme Court first took up a petition relating to the BCCI in 2014, and fresh applications have continued to be filed in that matter over the years. During those proceedings, the court appointed a committee chaired by former Chief Justice of India Justice R.M. Lodha to recommend a comprehensive reform framework, including the drafting of a formal constitution for the cricket board.

The court accepted the Lodha committee's recommendations, which covered structural, organisational and functional changes within the BCCI. A significant modification followed in September 2022, when the Supreme Court allowed modification of the BCCI constitution and ruled that an office bearer could have a combined continuous tenure of 12 years — comprising up to six years at the state association level and a further six years at the BCCI level — before a mandatory three-year cooling-off period becomes applicable.

The court also clarified that an office bearer could occupy a specific post for two consecutive terms at either the BCCI or a state association before the cooling-off obligation was triggered. The earlier version of the BCCI constitution, which the court had previously approved, had stipulated a mandatory three-year cooling-off period for any person who completed two successive three-year terms at either the state or the national level. The 2022 modification therefore represented a meaningful relaxation of the original tenure restrictions that the Lodha committee framework had put in place.

What is the next confirmed procedural step in this matter?

The bench has directed the advocates representing the BCCI and the state cricket associations to take instructions from their respective clients and place those instructions on record before the court. The matter is therefore expected to return before the bench once that process is complete.

The court's question on September 8, 2026 is significant because it raises the possibility that the BCCI and state associations — which have historically operated as autonomous private bodies — may be brought within the regulatory ambit of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. The legislation is already in force and governs the terms and conditions of service of office bearers in other national sports federations.