The Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA) has once again found itself in the news, though this time the matter has no connection with on-field action, venues or player conduct. Instead, the controversy concerns the internal functioning of one of India’s oldest cricket bodies and has now reached the doors of the judiciary.
Founded in 1934, the MCA is presently facing legal scrutiny over the manner in which its election process for the 2026-2029 term was conducted. On January 5, the Bombay High Court stayed the MCA elections that were scheduled to be held the following day, after observing prima facie illegality and a lack of transparency in the induction of nearly 400 new members shortly before the polls.
Confirming the development, MCA representative Kamlesh Pisal told News India Arena that the elections had indeed been stayed following a challenge to the voters’ list. “Our elections were scheduled for January 6, 2026. Some members have challenged the voters’ list in the high court. The elections are stayed till February 4,” he said.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad passed the interim order while hearing multiple writ petitions that questioned the MCA’s election schedule and voters’ list, both issued in December 2025.
Also read: FIR lodged against RCB, state cricket association
The petitions were led by former India cricketer Kedar Jadhav, who had filed his nomination for the councillor’s post and was expected to contest against sitting MCA president Rohit Pawar, an MLA from the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar group). Other petitioners included the Latur District Cricket Association, former MCA secretary and life member Anant Mate, and Sir Parashurambhau College, an MCA member institution.
Under the MCA’s election structure, 16 councillors are elected from various categories. These councillors then choose the office-bearers either through consensus or voting. The petitioners alleged that the MCA inducted approximately 400 new members in undue haste, without adequate notice or disclosure, thereby materially altering the electoral balance.
The court, in its order dated January 5, noted that the approval of 397 new members and their ratification by the general body appeared to have occurred on the same day without meaningful disclosure of meeting minutes. Existing members, the court observed, were effectively denied the opportunity to raise objections.
The bench also expressed concern over the Electoral Officer’s order dated December 29, 2025, which rejected objections to the voters’ list. The court held that the officer had adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of his role and failed to consider the wider implications of such mass inductions on electoral fairness.
Rejecting the MCA’s argument that courts should not interfere once the election process has commenced, the high court held that it possessed sufficient powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to intervene in cases of apparent illegality. Allowing the elections to proceed, the court said, would only perpetuate the alleged irregularities.
Accordingly, the elections were stayed until further orders. The MCA and other respondents have been directed to file their replies by February 3 with the matter listed for further hearing on February 4.
By Joe Williams
Follow us
