Prior judgments on sports governance do not apply to cricket associations; a tailored framework is necessary for district-level sports governance.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal(s) are preferred by the appellant Cricket Association against the final judgment and order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 12.06.2024 disposing of a clutch of Writ Appeals, namely Writ Appeal (MD) No. 896 of 2024 and Writ Appeal (MD) No. 915 of 2024.

3. The appellant is a district cricket association formed in 1958, registered as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and governed by its rules and bye-laws and is affiliated with the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (‘TNCA’), the State association. The facts in both the appeals before the High Court were distinct in content but analogous in form in the manner in which they sought to impugn the alleged lapses in the workings of the appellant, and are canvassed below in brief.

4. Facts in Writ Appeal (MD) No. 896 of 2024: The facts in this appeal are that the respondent no. 1 cricket club preferred a writ petition seeking direction against the appellant to grant the respondent no. 1 membership of the appellant association alongside voting rights and also allow respondent no. 1 to participate in the knockout tournament for the year 2021-2022. The appellant entered appearance and brought on record the fact that the respondent no. 1 has already been permitted to participate in the tournament, and in this view, the cause does not survive. Noting the fact of the respondent no. 1’s participation, the learned single judge disposed of the writ petition.

5. Since the writ petition was disposed of as allowed, on the issue of voting and membership rights, the appellant herein impugned the findings of the single judge in the writ appeal, which has been dismissed by the division bench, observing that the Respondent No. 1 club has the right to vote and membership in the appellant association. Since then, the respondent club has actively participated in tournaments organised by the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted, on instruction, that insofar as respondent no. 1’s voting rights are concerned, the appellant has no objection towards the same, and the respondent no. 1 may be allowed to vote. In view of these submissions, the issues in appeal(s) are confined to the reliefs granted by the High Court qua respondent no. 2 only, as outlined below.

6. Facts in Writ Appeal (MD) No. 915 of 2024: The facts relevant to this appeal are that respondent no. 2, an ex-office bearer of the appellant association, approached the High Court via writ petition, seeking directions that the appellant should conduct a free and fair election after preparation of a fresh voters list and sought to impugn the decisions taken by appellant associations in not complying with the norms as laid down by the High Court in previous judgments in S. Nithya v. Union of India, W.P. (MD) No. 3447 of 2019 and Secretary, Tamil Nadu Olympics Association v. S. Nithya, W.A. No. 1202 of 2022 (‘S. Nithya’) directing that every state sport federation will comply with the direction regarding mandatory presence of eminent sport person in the federation and other directions, so far as amending the appellant association’s Constitution is concerned, to bring them in line with the Constitutions of other similarly situated federations. The said prayer(s) were allowed by the High Court in the impugned order. Aggrieved, the appellant association has preferred the instant appeal.

7. We heard Mr. Amol Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Mayank Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in the present appeal(s) and perused the records. Mr Vikash Chandra Shukla, learned counsel, ably assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant district association has fairly submitted that, insofar as specific prayers of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are concerned, the appellant association has no objections to them. In this view, while the respondent no. 1 club wo