Shillong, June 28: Meghalaya Cricket Association ( MCA) functionaries have called the action of its president James Sangma against coach, manager and the secretary as arbitrary and without following the constitution.
The action of the president was following the orders of the women’s commission.
However, in a statement issued on Sunday (June 28), Rajiv Bareh, Vice President and Mebanphira Swer Joint Secretary said that by directing the president personally, the women’s commission’s order has created the impression that the president alone has the authority and mandate to act whereas his action is constitutionally incorrect. The commission’s directions are binding upon the MCA as an institution, to be implemented collectively through the Apex Council, the Disciplinary Sub-Committee and the duly appointed Ombudsman and not by the president acting unilaterally in his individual capacity.
Full text below
STATEMENT ON CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE AND DUE PROCESS
INTRODUCTION:
The matter before the cricketing fraternity does not concern whether allegations of misconduct ought to be investigated or whether those found guilty after due process should be held accountable. No reasonable person would oppose accountability where wrongdoing has been properly established.
The real question is whether the Meghalaya Cricket Association (‘MCA’ or ‘the Association’), in responding to these allegations, has adhered to its own Constitution, respected the principles of natural justice, and followed the institutional mechanisms that its Rules and Regulations expressly provide for precisely such situations.
Under Rule 16 of the MCA Constitution, all powers of governance, management and decisionmaking vest in the General Body, with the Apex Council exercising delegated authority subject to the General Body’s control and regulation. The MCA is therefore not a presidentially governed institution, it is a body governed collectively through its Apex Council under the supreme authority of its General Body.
The following issues therefore merit serious consideration by all members, affiliated units and the wider cricketing fraternity:
PART – I CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND COLLECTIVE GOVERNANCE
1. The President cannot make or implement any disciplinary decision unilaterally and without the collective decision of the Apex Council. Rule 18(a) of the MCA Constitution provides that the President shall preside over meetings of the Association and exercise general supervision over its activities. Emergency powers thereunder authorise the President to take measures necessary to safeguard the interest of the Association but such emergency powers are exceptional in nature and cannot be invoked as a general licence for disciplinary action. They do not displace the collective governance framework established under Rules 16 and 17.
2. No disciplinary action can be initiated against any office bearer or individual without the issuance of a Show Cause Notice and without affording the concerned person a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Rule 41(b) of the MCA Constitution expressly provides that upon receipt of any complaint, the Apex Council shall issue a Show Cause Notice calling for an explanation, and only on receipt of the same or in cases of no cause or insufficient cause being shown; shall the matter be referred to the Ombudsman. This procedural safeguard is mandatory, not discretionary.
3. The Constitution establishes a dedicated mechanism for disciplinary proceedings. Rule 21(f) provides for a Disciplinary Sub-Committee, whose function is to inquire into instances of misconduct or violation of the Rules and Regulations. Rule 41(c) further provides that on receipt of a complaint, the Governing Committee (Apex Council) shall refer the matter to the Disciplinary Sub-Committee within 48 hours for a preliminary inquiry, and the Sub-Committee is required to submit its report to the Apex Council within 15 days. These prescribed procedures cannot be bypassed by unilateral executive action.
4. The convening of a Special General Meeting (SGM) of the General Body on 3rd July for the appointment of an Ombudsman, as required under Rule 25(b)(vi) and Rule 40(1) of the MCA Constitution, is itself an acknowledgment that no validly appointed Ombudsman presently exists. In the absence of a duly appointed Ombudsman, any purported disciplinary proceedings that rely upon or reference Ombudsman-related authority are constitutionally unsound.
PART II – THE OMBUDSMAN: APPOINTMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY
5. Rule 40(1) of the MCA Constitution is unambiguous: the Association shall appoint an Ombudsman at the Annual General Meeting for the purpose of providing an independent dispute resolution mechanism. Rule 25(b)(vi) likewise lists the appointment of the Ombudsman as a specific item of business at the Annual General Meeting. Neither the President nor the Apex Council alone possesses the authority to appoint the Ombudsman that power is expressly reserved for the General Body at the Annual General Meeting.
6. If an Ombudsman has already been appointed, the Association must publicly disclose the specific constitutional provision under which such appointment was made, together with the resolution of the General Body authorising the same. Constitutional authority cannot be asserted merely by proclamation; it must be demonstrated through the Constitution itself.
7. If no valid appointment has been made, then on what constitutional basis are disciplinary proceedings being initiated or referenced? Conversely, if it is now claimed that such appointment has taken place, the Association must place on record whether a duly constituted Annual General Meeting was convened for that purpose, and if so, when and with what notice to members.
PART III – EQUAL AND NON-SELECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY
8. The complaints referred to in these proceedings were placed before the Meghalaya State Commission for Women. It is a matter of record that the complainants approached the Commission in the month of May 2026 approximately four and a half months after the new leadership assumed office. If the former administration functioning during a transition period is to be held responsible for alleged inaction, the same standard of accountability must equally and necessarily apply to the present leadership. The present administration had a full four and a half months within which it could have and ought to have taken institutional steps to address the complaints. The Commission’s Order itself records that complaints were sent to the official MCA email on 2nd and 3rd December 2025. The present leadership, upon assuming office, had access to those same official communications. The question that demands a public answer is: what concrete action, if any, was taken by the present administration during those four and a half months before the complainants were compelled to approach the Commission? The absence of any such action during this period cannot be overlooked while selectively fixing responsibility upon the former administration alone.
9. It is a matter of record that the very Manager who is now being subjected to disciplinary action was reappointed by the present leadership in the month of April 2026 to represent the MCA contingent at the NECDC Tournament at least a month before the complainants approached the Women’s Commission, and several months after the new leadership had assumed office. Under Rule 17(j) of the MCA Constitution, the Apex Council holds the power to appoint Managers of State teams or Association teams. This reappointment was made under the authority and watch of the present President, who issued the official list containing the Manager’s name. If the allegations against this individual were serious enough to warrant immediate disciplinary action today, they were equally serious in April 2026 when the present leadership chose to reappoint him for an official tournament. The present President cannot now position himself as the initiator of disciplinary proceedings against this very individual while remaining silent on the fact that the official MCA list issued under his own authority included this Manager’s name for an official tournament just months prior. He cannot credibly claim ignorance of, or distance himself from, a list that was issued in his name. This contradiction strikes at the heart of the credibility of the entire disciplinary exercise.
10. The President has had access to the official MCA email account in his capacity as head of the Association, exercising general supervisory authority over all its affairs under Rule 18(a) of the MCA Constitution. Official MCA records and communications are institutional in nature and are not the exclusive preserve of any single office bearer. If complaints were received through official MCA channels, the present administration cannot credibly claim ignorance of communications that were accessible to the Association’s leadership. The central question that must be answered publicly is: upon assuming office, what concrete institutional steps did the present administration take in relation to these complaints and if none were taken, why was the concerned individual nonetheless permitted to continue representing the Association in official tournaments under the present leadership?
11. Rule 41(b) of the MCA Constitution, which governs misconduct by Members and Administrators, establishes a clear procedural sequence: receipt of complaint, issuance of Show Cause Notice, opportunity for explanation, referral to Ombudsman. This sequence does not permit the President to act simultaneously as complainant, investigator, prosecutor and disciplinary authority. The separation of functions in the Constitution is deliberate and must be respected.
12. The Commission itself recommended that action be taken in accordance with the MCA Constitution. This recommendation cannot be treated as authorisation to bypass the very constitutional procedures it refers to. A recommendation to act constitutionally is not a recommendation to act unconstitutionally.
12A. A further and fundamental concern arises from the Commission’s Order itself. The Order is addressed to and directs the ‘present President (Mr. James Sangma)’ personally to take necessary action. However, the Meghalaya Cricket Association is a registered body corporate governed by its Constitution. Under Rule 16 of the MCA Constitution, all powers of governance, management and decision-making vest in the General Body, with the Apex Council as its governing body. The President is not the MCA he is one elected office bearer amongst several, deriving his authority solely from the Constitution and the General Body. Any direction of a statutory body such as the Meghalaya State Commission for Women, when addressed to a registered association, ought properly to be directed to the Meghalaya Cricket Association as an institution, not to one individual office bearer acting in his personal capacity. By directing the President personally, the Commission’s Order has, perhaps unintentionally, created the impression that the President alone has the authority and mandate to act. That impression is constitutionally incorrect. The proper and legally sound reading of the Commission’s Order is that its directions are binding upon the MCA as an institution, to be implemented collectively through the Apex Council, the Disciplinary Sub-Committee and the duly appointed Ombudsman and not by the President acting unilaterally in his individual capacity.
PART IV – TRANSITIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND LIMITATIONS OF AUTHORITY
13. Any assessment of responsibility must take into account the constitutional status of the Association during the relevant period. A dissolved or transitional administration cannot reasonably be expected to exercise powers it no longer legitimately possessed.
Accountability must be assessed in light of what authority each administration actually held at the material time.
14. If the former administration, functioning during a transition period, is held responsible for alleged inaction, the same temporal and institutional analysis must be applied to the present administration. Accountability cannot be fixed selectively upon one administration while ignoring the decisions and omissions of another that had equal or greater access to relevant information and equal authority to act.
PART V – TRANSPARENCY AND MEDIA CONDUCT
15. It is of grave concern that disciplinary measures are being announced publicly through press conferences and media statements before the constitutional process has been initiated, let alone completed. Such conduct creates a public impression that conclusions have already been reached before the concerned persons have been afforded their constitutional right to be heard. This undermines the integrity of any subsequent proceedings and is inconsistent with the principles of natural justice that the MCA Constitution is designed to uphold.
16. Rule 37 of the MCA Constitution prescribes transparency obligations for the Association.
These obligations run both ways: the Association must not only publish its decisions and accounts, but must also ensure that its proceedings are conducted in accordance with the Constitution before being presented to the public. Transparency in outcome is not a substitute for transparency in process.
PART VI – SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC ANSWERS
If the President genuinely subscribes to constitutional governance, the following questions deserve clear, public answers with reference to the specific provisions of the MCA Constitution that authorise each action:
(a) Under which specific provision of the MCA Constitution is the President empowered to unilaterally suspend an elected Honorary Secretary without a Show Cause Notice, without consideration by the Apex Council, and without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 41?
(b) Under which provision is the Ombudsman appointed other than by the General Body at the Annual General Meeting, as required under Rules 25(b)(vi) and 40(1)?
(c) Under which provision may the President bypass the Apex Council’s collective decision-making authority as established under Rules 16 and 17 (d)?
Under which provision may disciplinary measures be imposed before the completion of the constitutional process, including the Show Cause Notice procedure under Rule 41(b)?(e) If emergency powers under Rule 18(a) are being invoked, what specific emergency existed that precluded the convening of an Apex Council meeting under Rule 27, and why was the emergency procedure not disclosed at the time of the action?
CONCLUSION
The integrity of the Meghalaya Cricket Association cannot be protected through unilateral action, selective accountability or public announcements that precede due process. It can only be protected through strict adherence to the Constitution, collective decision-making through the Apex Council, equal application of standards across all administrations past and present and transparent proceedings conducted in accordance with the Rules and Regulations.
Rule 42 of the MCA Constitution vests interpretive authority in the Apex Council. That authority, however, does not extend to the rewriting of constitutional procedures or the assumption of powers the Constitution does not confer. The Apex Council, like every office bearer including the President, remains accountable to the Constitution and to the General Body, which is the supreme governing authority of this Association.
Today the action is directed against particular individuals. If the constitutional safeguards are disregarded today, the same precedent may be used against any member tomorrow. It is the Constitution not the discretion of any single office bearer that protects every member of this Association.
The rule of law within this Association must prevail over the discretion of any individual. The Apex Council and the General Body must discharge their constitutional duty, restore institutional order, and ensure that justice, if it is to mean anything must be seen to be done through lawful and constitutional means.
