At a time when cricket’s governing structures are under renewed judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court has asked the BCCI and state cricket associations to explain why they should remain outside the ambit of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana raised the issue on Tuesday while hearing applications filed by several cricket bodies in the long-running matter involving the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

The bench also directed lawyers representing the BCCI and state cricket associations to seek instructions on why the terms and conditions governing the service of their office bearers should not come under the 2025 legislation, which is currently in force.

The Supreme Court has been hearing proceedings related to the BCCI since 2014, with various applications being filed in the matter over the years.

The latest questions from the apex court could put the governance framework of Indian cricket under another round of judicial examination, particularly in light of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 now being in force.

The long-running matter had previously resulted in significant changes to the administration of Indian cricket. The apex court had appointed a committee led by former Chief Justice of India R M Lodha to recommend reforms for the BCCI, including the drafting of a new constitution for the cricket body.

The court subsequently accepted the committee's recommendations, paving the way for changes to the BCCI's organisational structure, functioning and governance.

One of the key issues addressed by the Supreme Court was the tenure of office bearers. In September 2022, the court approved modifications to the BCCI constitution that permitted an office bearer to complete a continuous 12-year tenure, comprising six years in a state cricket association and another six years at the BCCI, before becoming subject to a three-year cooling-off period.

The court also allowed office bearers to hold the same position for two successive terms at both the state association and BCCI levels. A three-year cooling-off period would follow the completion of those terms.

The earlier version of the BCCI constitution, approved by the Supreme Court, had mandated a three-year cooling-off period for individuals who had completed two consecutive three-year terms either in a state cricket association or at the BCCI.