BCCI as a Registered Society: the Lodha Reforms and the Supreme Court

The richest sports body in the world is, in law, a registered society. The Board of Control for Cricket in India is registered under the Tamil Nadu societies statute, and its two decades in the Supreme Court have become the most instructive case study in Indian societies law: how far a private association can be reached, how its internal governance can be rewritten under judicial supervision, and how the line between private body and public function is drawn.

1. The society and the Constitution

• Legal form. BCCI is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, with State cricket associations as its members.
• Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649: by majority, BCCI is not State under Article 12; it is not created by statute, holds no Government capital, receives no significant Government funding and is not dominated by Government.
• Public functions remained reachable: the majority recognised that BCCI's regulation of a public sport could attract the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the opening later cases used.

Figure 1: BCCI in the courts, 2005 to 2026

2. The 2015 judgment and the Lodha Committee

Figure 2: The Lodha reform architecture

• Accepted in 2016 with broad directions to amend BCCI's constitution: limits on age and tenure, a cooling off period, the exclusion of ministers and public servants, a reordered membership, and independent oversight through audit, an ethics officer and an ombudsman.
• Approved in 2018 with modifications, the Court relaxing some recommendations, including the strict one State, one vote principle, while settling the framework of the reformed constitution.
• Relaxed in 2022: on 14 September 2022 a bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli allowed an amendment under which an office bearer may serve two consecutive terms at a State association and two at BCCI, twelve years in all, before a three year cooling off period, which the Court explained exists to prevent undesirable monopolies.

3. The present question

Figure 3: Private society, public function

• The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 creates a framework of recognition and oversight for national sports bodies, with rules notified in May 2026.
• On 9 September 2026 a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant asked BCCI and State associations why they should not be governed by the Act; the question was pending when these notes were prepared.
• What turns on it: whether cricket's governance moves from a court-supervised society constitution to a statutory regime, with disputes going to a dedicated sports tribunal rather than the Supreme Court.
• For societies law the significance is general: where a society holds public power, legislatures and courts will supply governance standards the 1860 Act never contemplated.

4. Quick Revision

1. Separate Article 12 from Article 226 in every BCCI answer.
2. Cite the 2015 judgment for public functions.
3. Describe the Lodha reforms by their four aims.
4. Note the 2022 relaxation precisely.
5. Flag the Sports Governance Act question as pending.

5. Frequently Asked Questions

How could a court rewrite a private society's constitution?

Through its jurisdiction over public functions and its remedial powers, not through the Societies Registration Act. Having held in 2015 that BCCI's public functions make it answerable under Article 226, the Court used its authority to do complete justice, and the cooperation of the parties in a long-running proceeding, to appoint the Lodha Committee and approve a reformed constitution. Ordinary societies need not fear the same treatment: the intervention was justified by monopoly control over a national sport, public selection of the national team, and serious integrity concerns. A cultural club or welfare society with no public power remains governed by its own rules and the civil courts.

Why was BCCI not held to be State?

Because the Article 12 test asks about Government domination, not public importance. BCCI was not created by statute, Government holds none of its capital, it receives no significant Government funds, and Government does not control its management. The Zee Telefilms majority accepted that BCCI exercises enormous de facto power over cricket, but held that power in fact, without Government control, does not make a body the State's instrumentality. The minority would have treated the monopoly and public functions as enough, a view later cases did not adopt for Article 12, though they reached BCCI by the Article 226 route instead.

What should an exam answer on BCCI cover?

Four moves in order. First, the legal form: a society under the Tamil Nadu statute, governed by its own constitution. Second, the Article 12 question and Zee Telefilms. Third, the 2015 judgment establishing Article 226 review for public functions, with the conflict of interest holding and the Lodha Committee. Fourth, the reform arc: acceptance in 2016, modification in 2018, relaxation of tenure in 2022, and the 2026 Sports Governance Act question. Close by drawing the general lesson for societies law: public power attracts public accountability whatever the registration form.

6. Related Topics and Provisions

• Societies as State under Article 12
• Writ jurisdiction over societies
• State societies laws: an overview
• Meetings and elections in societies
• Duties of office bearers
• Reform of societies law in India