Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Appoint Ombudsman for Bihar Cricket Association, Citing 'Dirty Politics'

New Delhi - In a decisive move to quell protracted infighting within the Bihar Cricket Association (BCA), the Supreme Court of India on August 12, 2025, exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to appoint its former judge, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, as the new Ombudsman. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan set aside conflicting lower-level appointments and bypassed procedural objections to "put a quietus to the matter," condemning the "dirty politics" that has plagued the association and wasted judicial resources.

The Court's intervention brings an end to a convoluted legal battle that ascended from a single-judge bench of the Patna High Court to the nation's apex court, revolving entirely around the legitimate appointment of an ombudsman for the BCA. The ruling not only provides a definitive resolution for the sports body but also serves as a significant precedent on the Supreme Court's willingness to prioritize "larger public interest" over procedural technicalities like locus standi .

---

A 'Chequered History' of Disputes and Conflicting Appointments

The case, titled Secretary Bihar Cricket Association v. Bihar Cricket Association , arrived at the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an order by a division bench of the Patna High Court. The legal saga began when a single judge of the High Court, Justice Sandeep Kumar, appointed former Patna High Court judge Shaikesh Kumar Singh as the BCA's Ombudsman in a writ petition filed by then-secretary Aditya Prakash Verma (the current SLP was filed by Amit Kumar, also claiming to be secretary).

However, a division bench of the same High Court, led by Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, set aside this appointment. The division bench controversially held that the competent authority for such an appointment was the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), a finding the Supreme Court would later sharply criticize.

The situation was further muddled by the BCA's own internal actions. The court was informed of at least two other conflicting ombudsman appointments made by the association itself: Justice Nawal Kishore, a retired district judge appointed in one annual general meeting, and Justice Paras Nath Roy, another retired district judge, whose appointment was approved in a different meeting. This chaos over a fundamental oversight position underscored the deep-seated dysfunction within the association.

The Question of Locus Standi vs. Larger Public Interest

As proceedings commenced before the Supreme Court, counsel for the BCA immediately raised a preliminary objection regarding the petitioner's locus standi . They argued that Amit Kumar, who filed the petition claiming to be the Secretary of the BCA, had been removed from his post in 2023. Justice Pardiwala acknowledged the gravity of this objection, questioning the petitioner's capacity to bring the suit.

"Your locus is doubtful, Mr Shakdher," Justice Pardiwala remarked to Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher, who was representing the petitioner. "You were removed as a Secretary in 2023. You no longer hold the office, then in what capacity are you filing this petition on behalf of Secretary of Bihar Cricket Association?"

Despite these serious doubts, the bench consciously decided to look beyond the procedural challenge. In its final order, the Court noted:

"We could have declined to entertain the SLP at the instance of Shri Amit Kumar. But having looked into the matter threadbare and in larger interest of the association, we have decided to find a way out."

This pivot from a procedural dismissal to a substantive resolution highlights the Court's pragmatic approach, treating the matter as a de facto public interest litigation to cleanse a mismanaged public-facing body.

Supreme Court's Rebuke and Invocation of Article 142

The bench expressed profound frustration with the state of affairs at the BCA and similar organizations, which frequently consume the time of the highest court with their internal squabbles. In a scathing oral observation, Justice Pardiwala stated:

"All dirty politics, in all these types of associations and you all are wasting the time of the highest Court of the country trying to redress your own personal grievances. What a waste of public revenue, this cricket association, this Ombudsman and all, everything a farce."

The bench also delivered a pointed critique of the Patna High Court division bench's reasoning. It questioned the legal basis for involving the BCCI in the BCA's internal governance. "We fail to understand why BCCI was involved in this matter, what the BCCI has to do with appointment of ombudsman so far Bihar Cricket Association is concerned," the bench recorded in its order.

Finding no clear path forward through the existing appointments and legal challenges, the Court turned to its constitutional powers under Article 142, which allows it to pass any decree or make any order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause or matter pending before it.

"In such circumstances, and in larger public interest and for smooth and effective functioning of Bihar Cricket Association, we set aside the appointment of both Shri Nawal Kishore Singh and Paras Nath Roy," the order read. "We in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142, appoint Justice L. Nageswara Rao, former judge of the Supreme Court to act as Ombudsman of the Bihar Cricket Association."

The Court directed both factions of the BCA to meet with Justice Rao to establish the modalities for the association's functioning. His honorarium is to be fixed in consultation with the parties involved.

Legal and Institutional Implications

The Supreme Court's judgment carries significant implications for sports law and constitutional jurisprudence:

1. Reinforcement of Article 142: The decision is a powerful illustration of Article 142's utility in cutting through procedural Gordian knots to deliver substantive justice, particularly in cases affecting public institutions or where internal governance has completely failed.

2. Judicial Oversight in Sports Bodies: It reaffirms the judiciary's role as a final arbiter in cleaning up sports federations, a trend that gained prominence with the Lodha Committee reforms for the BCCI. The Court's actions signal that it will not hesitate to intervene directly when internal mechanisms for dispute resolution and governance prove illusory.

3. Locus Standi in Public Interest Matters: By proceeding despite valid questions about the petitioner's standing, the Court has implicitly broadened the scope for judicial review in cases where the underlying issue—mismanagement and public harm—transcends the petitioner's individual right to sue.

4. Clarity on Jurisdictional Limits: The rebuke of the High Court's order involving the BCCI serves as a clear reminder to lower courts to operate strictly within the established legal framework and not overstep by involving external bodies without a proper legal basis.

By appointing a respected former Supreme Court judge, the bench aims to install a neutral and authoritative figure capable of navigating the "dirty politics" and restoring order, ensuring the "smooth functioning of the Bihar Cricket Association without interference of any external forces or inter-se disputes of the members."