Case at a Glance
Rival office-bearers of the Meghalaya Cricket Association (MCA) went to court over the appointment of an Ombudsman, the President’s suspension of the Honorary Secretary and a series of meetings called by the opposing group. The Meghalaya High Court found the Ombudsman’s appointment by the Apex Council not strictly in line with the MCA Constitution, but refused to set it aside at the instance of members who had taken part in it. It upheld the suspension as a valid interim measure read with Section 12 of the POSH Act, declared the resolutions of 9 May and 7 September 2026 and a Special General Meeting notice illegal, and directed the MCA to implement the POSH Act within about six weeks.
On 7 March 2026 the MCA’s 26th Apex Council meeting, chaired by the President and attended by the members who later objected, ratified the appointment of a retired judge as Ombudsman; he accepted the offer and BCCI was informed. In May 2026 a meeting was called to reconsider the appointment over the President’s objection, and on 9 May 2026 it resolved that the Ombudsman should be appointed at the AGM. On 26 June 2026 the Meghalaya State Commission for Women passed an order on complaints of sexual harassment, noting an alleged suppression of official complaint emails, and directed compliance with the POSH Act.
On 27 June 2026 an emergent Apex Council meeting called a Special General Meeting, and the President suspended the Honorary Secretary. The High Court’s interim order of 1 July 2026 kept the Ombudsman functioning and stayed the Special General Meeting, and a meeting planned for 7 September 2026 was also stayed; the meeting was nevertheless held. The President challenged the meetings, while the Secretary and others challenged the Ombudsman’s appointment and the suspension.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the Ombudsman validly appointed, was the President entitled to suspend the Honorary Secretary, and what was the status of meetings held without the President’s concurrence and in the face of stay orders?
Conduct, Interim Safeguards and Respect for Court Orders
The Court held that the Ombudsman’s appointment “is strictly not in accordance with the MCA Constitution”, since the rules contemplate appointment at the AGM. But the challenge was “flawed by their own conduct”: the objectors had participated in the meeting that ratified it, the offer was issued and accepted, and they had themselves relied on the Ombudsman mechanism earlier. The Court therefore declined to entertain that challenge and allowed the Ombudsman to function de facto until the next AGM. The 9 May 2026 meeting was invalid because the notice lacked the President’s concurrence and the quorum rule was not met.
On the suspension, the Court read the President’s emergency power under Rule 18(a) with Section 12 of the POSH Act, 2013, which requires interim steps during an inquiry, and held that “the action cannot be said to be arbitrary, but more of an interim administrative measure and not a final decision.” It concluded that “the suspension was a valid interim measure.” Because the 7 September 2026 meeting went ahead while stay orders were in force, “all resolutions arrived at in the 07.09.2026 meeting are non-est in law.”
What the Court Actually Held
- The Special General Meeting notice of 27 June 2026 is invalid, and the resolutions of 9 May and 7 September 2026 are illegal and non-est in law.
- The challenge to the Ombudsman’s appointment was not entertained; the Ombudsman will function de facto until the matter is taken up at the next AGM.
- The Honorary Secretary’s suspension dated 27 June 2026 was upheld as a valid interim measure; assets, digital credentials and e-mail identities must be handed over within two weeks.
- The MCA must strictly implement the POSH Act, 2013 and put safety protocols in place, preferably within six weeks.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It applies the POSH Act to a sports association and links interim action to Section 12 of the Act.
- It shows that members who participate in a decision may be unable to challenge it later.
- It confirms that resolutions passed in defiance of court stay orders have no legal effect.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Sports Bodies and Members
- Follow the constitution on who appoints the Ombudsman, and at which meeting.
- Set up POSH mechanisms, including an Internal Committee, before complaints arise.
For Counsel
- Raise objections at the meeting itself; later challenges may fail on conduct.
- Interim suspensions pending POSH inquiries are judged as administrative steps, not final penalties.
Key Takeaways
- Meetings held in breach of stay orders are non-est.
- Ombudsman continues de facto till the next AGM.
- Suspension upheld as an interim POSH measure, not a final finding.
- POSH compliance ordered within about six weeks.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the POSH Act apply to sports associations?
The Court directed the Meghalaya Cricket Association to strictly implement the POSH Act, 2013 and put safety protocols in place, and read Section 12 of the Act with the President’s emergency power.
Was the Honorary Secretary found guilty of harassment?
No. The Court upheld his suspension only as an interim administrative measure, “not a final decision”.
Why was the Ombudsman’s appointment not cancelled despite the defect?
Because those challenging it had participated in the meeting that ratified it and relied on the mechanism, so the challenge was flawed by their own conduct.
Conclusion
The judgment restores order in a divided sports body by insisting on its own rules, on obedience to court orders and on a safe environment for players and staff.
Practical takeaway: Associations must follow their constitutions for key appointments and treat POSH compliance as a legal duty, not an option.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com