Special Correspondent
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which proudly projects itself as the world’s richest cricket governing body, owes the cricket fraternity and the public an explanation for its apparent reluctance to act against erring office-bearers of its affiliated state associations. Its latest controversy over the appointment of a suspended Meghalaya Cricket Association (MCA) secretary to a key role in a national women’s tournament has once again exposed the glaring gap between the Board’s financial might and its institutional accountability.
The issue concerns Rayonald Kharkamni, honorary secretary of the MCA, who was suspended on June 27, 2026, following findings by the Meghalaya State Commission for Women that four association office-bearers had shown grave negligence in dealing with sexual harassment complaints raised by members of the state’s Under-23 women’s team. The complaints, initially lodged in December 2025 against the team’s then head coach and manager, allegedly remained unattended for months. The Commission found the two accused guilty of sexual harassment, while holding the concerned association officials responsible for their failure to respond appropriately. The Meghalaya High Court upheld Kharkamni’s suspension on October 30, and the MCA Ombudsman, in an order dated November 6, upheld it for the remainder of the elected body’s tenure.
Yet, on October 26, Kharkamni was named North-East Zone convenor for the BCCI Senior Women’s T20 Inter-Zonal Tournament. Although the zonal associations are reported to have nominated him, the appointment to a position connected with a BCCI tournament raises an uncomfortable question: what due diligence did the Board exercise, and why did the concerns communicated to it by the MCA leadership not trigger an immediate review? BCCI Secretary Devajit Saikia has rejected reports suggesting that the Board itself made the appointment. But that clarification does not answer the larger question of institutional responsibility. The Board cannot wash its hands of a controversy merely by pointing to the nomination process when the tournament is being conducted under its own banner.
This is not an isolated episode. Indian cricket has witnessed disturbing instances of alleged misconduct, administrative failure and institutional indifference towards women players. The Andhra Cricket Association (ACA) faced a similar controversy in 2009 when six women cricketers approached the then Home Minister, P. Sabita Indra Reddy, alleging sexual harassment and exploitation by its then secretary, V. Chamundeswarnath. The association suspended him following complaints and an internal inquiry; the State Government also ordered a police investigation. He denied the allegations. The episode should have served as an enduring warning to cricket administrators that the safety and dignity of women players cannot be subordinated to the influence of powerful office-bearers.
Nor can the BCCI claim ignorance of the administrative and financial problems plaguing several of its affiliated units. The Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) is a particularly glaring example. Years of allegations of mismanagement, questionable expenditure and governance failures have invited forensic scrutiny, judicial intervention and criminal investigations. An Enforcement Case Information Report was registered by the Enforcement Directorate in July 2025 against the HCA president and four others, following a CID investigation into alleged fund diversion and misuse. The association’s own earlier audit records also raised questions about financial documentation and transactions. The Telangana High Court has repeatedly had to intervene in HCA’s affairs, including through supervisory arrangements, to restore administrative discipline and protect the interests of the game. The larger concern is that a city with a glorious cricketing legacy should not have to depend on judicial intervention to ensure basic accountability.
The Bihar Cricket Association offers another telling illustration. In August 2024, the Patna High Court criticised its functioning, referring to brazen violations of rules, nepotism and centralisation of powers. The court observed that maladministration was hurting cricketers and the game in the state, and appointed a retired High Court judge as Ombudsman. Allegations of corruption, financial irregularities and mismanagement had also been brought to the attention of the BCCI. The subsequent litigation continued into 2025, with the Patna High Court directing that complaints could be placed before the BCCI for appropriate consideration, including an independent Ombudsman if required. These developments make it difficult for the Board to argue that it has no institutional responsibility when serious complaints arise within its own membership.
Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) is yet another example that cannot be brushed aside. The association faced allegations of large-scale financial embezzlement, including the alleged diversion of funds meant for cricket development. The matter attracted investigations by central agencies and became a major controversy in Indian cricket. These cases, though different in their facts and legal status, underline a recurring problem: state associations often appear to enjoy considerable autonomy without adequate, consistent oversight from the national governing body. (to be concluded)
