The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to interfere with the stay granted by the Bombay High Court on the election for the apex council of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA).
The HC’s interim stay order of last month was a setback to Nationalist Congress Party (SP) MLA Rohit Pawar, the incumbent president of the MCA. The Supreme Court orally remarked that the HC’s injunction was “justified” as it stopped the MCA from “committing big fraud”. The Supreme Court asked the MCA to argue its case before the HC, which is likely to be heard on February 4.
The petitioners had challenged the “illegal” election process and had claimed there was “erroneous” inclusion of more than 400 voters (life members) in the draft voter list of the MCA.
The plea added that the members included Rohit Pawar’s relatives, such as his wife, Kunti Pawar, his father-in-law, Satish Magar, NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule’s daughter, Revati, Baramati Agro’s Subhash Gulave, and over 30 NCP leaders.
A bench of Bombay HC Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A Ankhad had then observed “no sufficient opportunity was given” to petitioners to raise their objections about admission of nearly 400 new members, which would “certainly change the whole complexion” of the issue.
“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,” the HC interim order recorded.
Story continues below this ad
Thereafter, aggrieved MCA approached the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition (SLP).
On Tuesday, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the MCA, claimed the HC intervened just a day before the scheduled election, despite past SC verdicts laying down that courts should ordinarily not interfere once the election process commences.
However, a SC bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said that as the matter was pending before the HC, the MCA can argue the same before the bench concerned.
When Singhvi termed the HC’s injunction to be “illegal”, the SC bench orally remarked, “Injunction is justified. They (HC) stopped you from committing bigger fraud. Do not invite more comments from us.”
Story continues below this ad
Singhvi further raised concerns that the pleas in HC were aimed at stalling the elections and installing an administrator for MCA, adding that this should not be allowed.
Who is association for if not cricketers, asks Supreme Court
CJI Kant referred to the issue of inclusion of new members and orally remarked, “This is a country which produced outstanding cricketers who have retired. We would have let this be if you had some of them on this list, but you have people who don’t even know how to hold a bat. Don’t make us say more.”
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the state government, submitted that Jadhav, the petitioner before the HC, was a former international cricketer. CJI Kant said ex-cricketers deserved respect to handle the affairs of the cricket association. “Who is the association for if not the cricketers?” the CJI asked.
The Supreme Court noted that all parties were at liberty to raise their contentions before the HC, which was scheduled to take up the matter on February 4, and that the HC would consider their pleas, including modification of interim orders. It also asked the HC to endeavour to expedite the decision on the matter. The Supreme Court dismissed the MCA’s appeal as withdrawn.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
