Meghalaya HC Upholds MCA Honorary Secretary’s Interim Suspension After Women’s Commission Cited Suppressed Sexual-Harassment Complaint Emails

The petitions arose from disputes within the Meghalaya Cricket Association (MCA) between its President, James P.K. Sangma, and Honorary Secretary, Rayanold Kharkamni.

The President’s appointment of a retired Judge as Ombudsman was recorded at the 26th Apex Council Meeting on 7 March 2026, communicated to the BCCI and accepted by the appointee.

The Secretary and other office-bearers later challenged the appointment, contending that the MCA Constitution required appointment at an Annual General Meeting (AGM).

A subsequent meeting purported to place the appointment in abeyance.

After findings and directions of the Meghalaya State Commission for Women concerning sexual harassment and alleged suppression of complaints, the President suspended the Secretary as an emergency measure.

The Secretary challenged the suspension, while the President challenged subsequent meetings and resolutions said to undermine the Ombudsman’s role.

The Court heard the three petitions together and identified the appointment, suspension, and legality of the meetings as the principal issues.

The Court considered Rules 18(a) and 18(c)(iv) of the MCA Constitution, concerning the President’s emergency powers and the concurrence required for calling a meeting; Rules 25(b)(vi) and 40, providing for appointment of the Ombudsman at the AGM; Rule 30(b), prescribing meeting quorum; Rule 41(b), requiring the Apex Council to consider whether a prima facie case exists before disciplinary proceedings; and Article 14.5, concerning disqualification for holding office in an affiliate association.

It also considered the POSH Act, 2013, particularly Section 12, which the Court treated as supporting temporary measures while an inquiry was underway.

The BCCI v. Bihar Cricket Association precedent, (2015) 3 SCC 251, was cited by counsel in support of AGM appointment, but the Court’s decision rested on the MCA rules, the parties’ conduct, and the surrounding circumstances.

Although the Court observed that the Ombudsman’s appointment was not strictly in accordance with the MCA Constitution’s AGM requirement, it declined to accept the Secretary’s challenge in view of his participation in the meeting, his prior reliance on the Ombudsman mechanism, and the appointment’s communication and acceptance.

The attempted reversal at the 9 May meeting was invalid because the notice was issued without the President’s required concurrence and the meeting lacked the prescribed quorum.

The Court treated the Secretary’s suspension as a temporary emergency measure under Rule 18(a), rather than a final disciplinary determination, and considered it justified in light of the MSCW’s findings and the need to protect complainants and evidence while proceedings were pending.

It held that the 7 September meeting had proceeded despite subsisting court orders and that its resolutions were therefore non-est.

The challenge to the Ombudsman’s appointment in WP(C) No. 321 of 2026 was not entertained, and the challenge to the Secretary’s suspension in WP(C) No. 377 of 2026 was dismissed.

The Ombudsman was to function de facto until the matter was taken up at the next AGM.

The Secretary and other respondents were directed to hand over MCA assets and digital credentials within two weeks, and the MCA was directed to implement the POSH Act and workplace-safety protocols, preferably within six weeks.