Supreme Court asks BCCI why it should be exempt from the National Sports Governance Act 2025 as cricket bodies face fresh scrutiny.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has asked the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and state cricket associations to explain why the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 should not apply to them. The question could have major implications for cricket administration and governance in India.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana raised the issue on Tuesday, September 8, while hearing fresh applications linked to the long-running BCCI case. The applications include requests from state cricket bodies and their members concerning constitutional changes, control and administration.

The Supreme Court has dealt with BCCI-related matters for more than a decade. The latest development comes as the government implements a new legal framework designed to strengthen transparency, accountability and dispute resolution across India’s sports organisations.

What Did the Court Say?

The Supreme Court asked the BCCI and state cricket associations to explain why the National Sports Governance Act 2025 should not govern them.

The bench also asked lawyers representing the cricket bodies to seek instructions on another issue. It wants to know why the terms and conditions governing the service of office bearers should remain outside the new sports law.

In simple terms, the court wants the BCCI and state associations to explain why their administrators should not follow the governance rules created under the new legislation.

The question carries significance because the Act has moved beyond the proposal stage. Parliament passed the legislation in 2025, and the government has introduced its provisions in phases. Several provisions took effect from January 1, 2026.

However, the Supreme Court has not ruled that the BCCI or state cricket associations fall under the Act. The bench has only asked them to explain why they should remain outside its framework.

Why Has the BCCI Case Continued Since 2014?

The Supreme Court’s involvement in BCCI administration dates back to 2014. The proceedings brought major questions about the way Indian cricket operates before the court.

The court later appointed a committee headed by former Chief Justice of India R M Lodha. The Lodha Committee examined the functioning of the BCCI and recommended reforms to improve transparency, strengthen accountability and prevent excessive concentration of power.

The Supreme Court accepted several of these recommendations and supervised their implementation. In 2017, it directed the Committee of Administrators to prepare a new BCCI constitution based on the reforms approved by the court.

After discussions involving the BCCI and state cricket associations, the Supreme Court approved the new constitution in August 2018. The BCCI later registered the constitution with the Registrar of Societies in Tamil Nadu.

The court’s involvement did not end with the approval of the constitution. State associations and other cricket stakeholders continued to approach the Supreme Court over constitutional amendments, elections, office-bearer terms and disputes involving the administration of cricket bodies.

This long history makes the latest question about the new sports law particularly important for both the BCCI and the Supreme Court.

What Is the BCCI Cooling-Off Period?

The tenure of cricket administrators has remained an important issue in the BCCI case.

Under the earlier rules approved by the Supreme Court, an office bearer who completed two consecutive three-year terms had to leave cricket administration for three years before seeking another elected position. The rule applied to terms served at the state association, at BCCI level or through a combination of both.

The three-year break is known as a cooling-off period. In simple terms, it requires an office bearer to step away from cricket administration for a fixed period before returning to an elected post. The rule aims to prevent the same group of administrators from holding power continuously.

In September 2022, the Supreme Court approved changes to the BCCI’s constitutional provisions governing the cooling-off requirement.

Under the revised arrangement, an office bearer could serve six years at the state level and another six years at the BCCI level before the cooling-off requirement applied. This effectively allowed an administrator to serve up to 12 years across the two levels before taking the mandatory break.

The court considered the changes after the BCCI sought modifications to the earlier rules. The board had argued that the previous arrangement could trigger the cooling-off period too quickly when an administrator moved between a state association and the BCCI.

The cooling-off issue remains relevant because the new sports law also introduces governance requirements for sports bodies and their office bearers.

Why Has BCCI Resisted the New Sports Law?

The BCCI has historically maintained that it operates as an autonomous private body rather than as a government organisation. It functions as a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.

The BCCI has relied on this legal status while challenging the extent of government control over its functioning. The board has also maintained that it does not receive government funding.

This argument has featured in earlier disputes over the Right to Information Act. The BCCI has resisted classification as a public authority under the RTI framework. A 2026 Central Information Commission decision also recorded the continuing legal debate over whether the BCCI meets the definition of a public authority under the RTI Act.

The BCCI has another argument under the new sports law. The National Sports Governance Act defines a designated sport as a sport discipline that the Central Government specifies through notification for a particular region, state or the country.

The BCCI has argued that the government has not formally notified cricket as a designated sport under the new framework. On that basis, it has questioned whether the Act should automatically apply to the board.

The Supreme Court must now consider these arguments along with the wider scope of the new legislation and the BCCI’s role in Indian cricket.

What If the BCCI Comes Under the Act?

The National Sports Governance Act 2025 creates a new mechanism for resolving sports-related disputes through a National Sports Tribunal.

The legislation gives the tribunal jurisdiction over specified sports disputes and provides for appeals to the Supreme Court in certain circumstances. It also gives the tribunal powers similar to those of a civil court for matters that fall within its jurisdiction.

The tribunal has now become part of India’s sports governance structure. In June 2026, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports invited applications to fill vacancies for members of the National Sports Tribunal, which is based in New Delhi.

If the BCCI and relevant state cricket associations ultimately come under the Act, disputes covered by the legislation could move through this specialised tribunal instead of reaching the Supreme Court directly in the same manner.

The Act also contains provisions concerning the transfer of pending cases. This could become important for cricket administration because the Supreme Court has dealt with BCCI-related litigation for many years.

However, the exact impact on existing cases will depend on how the Supreme Court interprets the Act and determines which provisions apply to the BCCI and its affiliated associations.

National Sports Governance Act 2025: Key Details

The National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya on July 23, 2025.

The Lok Sabha passed the Bill on August 11, followed by the Rajya Sabha on August 12. President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent on August 18, 2025, turning the legislation into law.

The Act seeks to establish a structured framework for sports administration in India. Its objectives include promoting good governance, ethical practices, fair play and athlete welfare while creating a unified mechanism for resolving sports disputes.

The government did not bring the entire law into force at once. Instead, it introduced selected provisions in phases, with several sections taking effect from January 1, 2026.

The legislation also establishes the National Sports Board and sets requirements covering recognised sports organisations, elections, ethics, safe-sport policies, accounts and audits.

These provisions have brought the BCCI’s legal position under renewed scrutiny, particularly because of the board’s unique structure and its role in Indian cricket.

What Happens Next for BCCI?

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the BCCI and state cricket associations must comply with the National Sports Governance Act, 2025.

For now, the cricket bodies must respond to the questions raised by the three-judge bench. The court will then consider their arguments on the BCCI’s autonomous status, its legal structure, the scope of the new legislation and the position of cricket under the Act.

The final decision could affect how the BCCI operates if the court determines that the new law applies to it. The board could then face a different set of governance, accountability and dispute-resolution requirements.

The decision could also influence the Supreme Court’s future workload. If the new tribunal handles disputes covered by the Act, fewer cricket administration matters may reach the top court directly.

For now, the Supreme Court has only sought explanations and has not reached a final conclusion on the BCCI’s exemption. The next hearing and responses from the BCCI and state cricket associations will therefore remain important developments in the case.