Sporting facilities should be recognised as material resources of the community: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently commented on the significance of sports in India, holding that it is high time that sporting facilities and opportunities are recognised as being part of the material resources of the community [Tiruchirapalli District Cricket Association Vs Anna Nagar Cricket Club & Anr].

A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made the observation while partly allowing appeals arising from disputes within the Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association.

"It is high time we recognize that sporting 'facilities and opportunities' are 'material resources of the community', and their organizers are 'the institutions of the national life.' As 'places of public resort', sporting institutions and bodies must remain accessible, not just for pursuing sport, but also for its administration. It should be the deeper Sadhana (endeavour) of the State, and it is also our Constitutional duty to ensure that sporting facilities and opportunities flourish with institutional efficiency, integrity, professionalism, and expertise," the Court said.

In constitutional law, the phrase “material resources of the community” comes from Article 39(b) of the Directive Principles of State Policy. It refers to assets that are essential for public welfare and social development, and which must be distributed in a way that serves the common good rather than allowing them to concentrate in private hands.

In its February 13 ruling, the top court has now linked this phrase to sporting facilities and opportunities, to underscore their importance for the public.

It observed that sports bring together people from diverse backgrounds, thereby furthering the Constitutional value of fraternity.

"Recognising the importance of sport to national life, this Court has an occasion to observe that, National, international, regional or even mohalla sports in India serve as the Karmabhumi where cohesion and collective purpose take tangible form. They bring together individuals from diverse social, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds under a common pursuit, embodying the Constitutional value of fraternity. Here, individual and collective aspirations find a way to coalesce. On the field, teamwork compels individuals to set aside personal distinctions and work together, cultivating habits of cooperation, solidarity, and mutual respect," the ruling reads.

The Court also emphasised that it is important to ensure that sporting facilities and opportunities are affordable and accessible to all.

"It is also necessary to ensure that sporting facilities and opportunities are not concentrated in the hands of the urban economic elite and that the revenues from sporting events, intellectual property and media rights are so distributed to subserve and encourage accessible and affordable sport in our country ... Accessibility of sports is important, for when opportunities to participate are open to all— irrespective of race, caste, religion, sex, or economic status—the unifying power of sport is amplified. This inclusiveness ensures that sports become not a privilege of the few but a medium through which fraternity is strengthened across society. In this way, sports operationalise what the framers envisioned: an intangible yet indispensable force that holds us together through shared effort and common purpose," the Court said.

The top court was dealing with two appeals challenging the Madras High Court's ruling on issues concerning membership, voting rights and election oversight with respect to the Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association.

In one appeal, a cricket club sought a direction to grant it membership and voting rights in the district association and permit it to participate in the 2021–22 knockout tournament. During the proceedings, the association informed the Court that the club had already been permitted to participate, after which a single judge of the High Court closed the petition but recorded findings on membership and voting rights, which were later upheld in appeal by a Division Bench.

The second proceeding was initiated by a former office-bearer who sought directions to conduct free and fair elections after preparing a fresh voters’ list. The petitioner also challenged the association’s failure to comply with governance norms laid down in earlier High Court rulings in S Nithya v. Union of India, which directed reforms in sports bodies, including the mandatory presence of eminent sportspersons and transparency measures. The High Court allowed the plea and applied those directions to the association.

This was challenged before the Supreme Court by the association.

The association told the top court that it had no objection to granting voting rights to the club and to directions concerning the oversight of future elections. The challenge was confined to the High Court’s reliance on S Nithya and the requirement to carry out structural reforms based on that judgment.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Madras High Court's decision to apply the S Nithya principles to the Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association was incorrect.

“There being no prescription or direction in the BCCI judgments on 75% membership in an association to be filled by eminent sports persons… the directions in S Nithya (supra) would not be applicable to the fact of the present case concerning sport of cricket," Court held.

The Court also rejected arguments that district associations must amend their constitutions to mirror the constitution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

It clarified that a judgment in BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar required reforms for BCCI and State associations, but did not mandate district associations to adopt identical constitutional structures.

Nevertheless, the Court said that there is a need to ensure that reforms are undertaken at the level of district associations as well, to promote transparency and efficiency in sporting events.

"However, though enforcement of such a reform as contemplated in the BCCI judgment cannot be done through judicial review, we must clarify that it is open, rather necessary, for the State Association to initiate reforms to ensure that District Associations operate as professional, transparent, and in the best interests of the sport," the Court said.

It added that such reforms may include transparency in the selection of players and also in the execution of contracts.

"In fact, District Associations must volunteer to adopt reformative measures such as good governance, refined management, transparency, and the exclusion of conflicts of interest," the Court further said.

The Court went on to note that disputes regarding membership and composition of the association are already pending before the High Court and statutory authorities under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.

With these findings, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals and set aside the Madras High Court’s order to the extent it applied broader sports governance directions from the S Nithya case to the association.

The Court directed that the pending proceedings before the High Court and statutory authorities be decided expeditiously so that the enquiry into membership issues can be completed and elections to the association can be held at the earliest.

The petitioners were represented by Advocates Amol Chitale, Pragya Baghel, , Shweta Singh Parihar and Sarthak Sharma.

The respondents were represented by Advocates Mayank Mishra, Raghav Sabharwal, Kunwar Surya Pratap, Harsh Vardhan Singh and Akshaj Chaturvedi.

Advocate VC Shukla assisted the Court as amicus in the case.

[Read Judgment]