New Delhi — The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Rajasthan Cricket Association (RCA) election scheduled for the day to go ahead but directed that the poll result shall not be declared until further orders. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, passed the order while hearing a petition raising concerns over the absence of women candidates or voters in the election.
Court order and immediate effect
The bench observed that, given the issues raised in the petition — notably women’s representation in the RCA — the election could be held as scheduled, but its outcome must not be announced. The court asked the Rajasthan High Court to decide the matter pending before it concerning the alleged non‑holding of state cricket association elections.
“Having regard to the issues raised by the petitioner, especially of women’s representation in the Rajasthan Cricket Association (RCA), we direct that the election, which is scheduled to take place today, will take place. However, the result shall not be declared,” the bench said.
The apex court informed parties that the high court should endeavour to dispose of the pending petition. It also gave the petitioner liberty to move an application in the broader Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) matter pending before the apex court.
Background: petitioner’s grievance and high court action
The petition was filed by a former woman cricketer who contended that there was neither a single female voter nor a candidate in the RCA election and sought a stay on the poll. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the petitioner and urged the Supreme Court to halt the election; when the bench indicated reluctance to stay the exercise, she proposed that the poll result could be sealed.
The Rajasthan government’s counsel informed the top court that the Rajasthan High Court had earlier appointed an administrator for the RCA. In July, while hearing a separate petition, the high court had designated the additional chief secretary of the state government’s home department as the administrator, directing that district cricket associations remain under the administrator’s supervision until a regular committee is formed.
Election logistics reported in court
At the hearing, the apex court bench was told the election was to commence at 11:30 am on Tuesday and that the result was slated to be declared later the same day. With the Supreme Court order, polling may proceed at the scheduled time but the declaration of any result is stayed by the bench.
| Detail | Reported information |
|---|---|
| Bench | Chief Justice Surya Kant; Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana |
| Election start time | 11:30 am (reported) |
| Immediate court direction | Election to proceed; result not to be declared |
| Pending matters | Petition on women’s representation; related petition before Rajasthan High Court; broader BCCI matter in apex court |
Implications for RCA governance and women’s representation
The petition highlights an acute concern about women’s participation in the administrative processes of state cricket. The apex court’s direction preserves the immediate conduct of the poll but prevents finalisation of any new committee pending judicial scrutiny. The bench’s urging that the high court decide the pending plea indicates an expectation of a timely adjudication on the substantive issues raised.
- The election may proceed at the times already announced, but counting or declaration is stayed.
- The Rajasthan High Court, being seized of a parallel petition, has been asked to expedite its decision.
- The petitioner retains the right to seek further relief in the BCCI matter pending before the Supreme Court.
What to watch next
Observers of sports governance in the state will await the Rajasthan High Court’s decision on the related petition and any further orders from the Supreme Court in the BCCI‑linked proceedings. The stay on result declaration means any administrative changes arising from the election remain in abeyance until the courts resolve the representation and procedural questions raised.
The case underscores judicial engagement with governance standards in sports bodies and the legal avenues available to address concerns about inclusivity and adherence to constitutional or organisational norms. The apex court’s limited, interim direction has immediate practical effect and keeps the legal contest over RCA’s electoral process alive.
