The Bombay High Court has put a stay on the Maharashtra Cricket Association’s (MCA) apex council elections scheduled for January 6, after raising serious concerns about the sudden addition of over 400 new members—several of whom are closely related to sitting president and NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) MLA Rohit Pawar.
A bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, while hearing a clutch of petitions including one filed by former cricketer Kedar Jadhav, observed that the manner in which the new memberships were granted appeared to be done “in a hot haste” and with the clear potential to influence the outcome of the elections.
The petitions alleged that the MCA’s draft voters’ list, released on December 25, 2025, included individuals with no apparent link to cricket, but strong familial ties to current office-bearers. Among the new members are Rohit Pawar’s wife Kunti, his father-in-law Satish Magar, and NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule’s daughter Revati.
The petitioners claimed this was a blatant attempt to convert the MCA into a “private organisation” by packing the voters’ list with loyalists ahead of the election. “Many of the new members are related to the President and other office-bearers who are at the helm of affairs,” the court noted in its order.
The bench also took note of the fact that existing members had no opportunity to object to the additions or review the relevant minutes of the Apex Council and Annual General Meetings.
“In the circumstances of the case, this Court cannot adopt a hands-off stand and permit the elections scheduled on January 6 to continue. The High Court should not permit the illegality to be perpetuated,” the bench ruled, while directing the electoral officer to withhold the polls until further orders.
The next hearing is scheduled for February 4.
The High Court also expressed skepticism over the rationale offered by the MCA for granting life membership to individuals who made financial contributions to the Association. “It is debatable whether a person can become a life member of the association merely because he or she has donated funds towards cricket,” the court observed.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the MCA, defended the new inductions by arguing that they had significantly contributed to the development of cricket infrastructure in the state. He said the MCA’s rules did not require a person to be a cricketer or even directly associated with the sport to be granted membership.
However, the court made it clear that the objectives of the MCA—to promote cricket, develop infrastructure, and improve standards—must remain paramount and cannot be overridden by financial considerations alone.
The court’s intervention has cast a shadow over the credibility of the MCA’s electoral process and is likely to intensify scrutiny of how cricket administration bodies across the country manage their memberships and elections. With the MCA being one of the most influential state associations, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for future governance and transparency in Indian cricket bodies.
