Meghalaya High Court Asks State Cricket Association To Ensure Strict Implementation Of POSH Act; Upholds Suspension Of Honorary Secretary

The matter before the High Court emanated from a series of writ petition revolving around an institutional breakdown within the Meghalaya Cricket Association (MCA), most specifically the differences and disputes in the executive leadership i.e. the President and the Honorary Secretary, dealing with statutory findings of sexual harassment, institutional coverup and the question on the appointment and continuance of the Ombudsman.

The Single Bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew held, “WP(C) No. 377 of 2026 challenging the suspension of the Honorary Secretary stands dismissed and order of suspension dated 27.06.2026, upheld.”

“The MCA is directed to ensure strict implementation of the POSH Act, 2013, and to put in place safety protocols within the shortest possible period, preferably within 6(six) weeks from the date of this order”, it ordered.

The petitioner who is the President had asserted the validity of the Ombudsman’s appointment and also the legality of the Honorary Secretary suspension, as a mandatory emergency measure to comply with the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act (POSH), mandate. In other two writ petitions, the Honorary Secretary as Petitioner, had challenged the Ombudsman’s appointment, apart from contending that the President lacks the power to unilaterally suspend an elected official without prior Apex Council concurrence.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Ombudsman’s appointment was ratified on March 7, 2026, by the 26th Apex Council Meeting. The Bench noted that the records showed that the meeting was held pursuant to a notice dated March 3, 2026, signed by the Honorary Secretary, which placed the subject matter of appointment of the Ombudsman before the said meeting. “The minutes of the said 26th Apex Council Meeting, also specifically records the decision of the appointment of Ombudsman, and as such, the allegation that the appointment was forcefully imposed cannot be accepted, at this stage”, it added.

The Bench noted that though, the regulations provide that the appointment of the Ombudsman is to be by the AGM, as per Rule 25(b)(vi) and Rule 40, the Honorary Secretary’s and other members challenge, was flawed by their own conduct as they had participated in the meeting, and further the offer letter dated March 9, 2026, was issued and accepted by the Ombudsman, whose appointment was also communicated to the BCCI on March 10, 2026, which was to the knowledge of the Honorary Secretary and others.

The Bench also found that prior to the orders of the MSCW, the Honorary Secretary had no quarrel with the manner of appointment of the Ombudsman, and also endorsed the same in an earlier writ petition and it was only after the MSCW’s orders that the challenge materialized.

“Coming to the impugned suspension of the Honorary Secretary by the President under Rule 18(a) in the considered view of this Court on examination of the said Rule, which empowers the President to take all measures in an emergency to safeguard the Association, the action cannot be said to be arbitrary, but more of an interim administrative measure and not a final decision. Though Rule 41(b), speaks of final disciplinary proceedings requiring the Apex Council’s prima facie finding, the suspension of the Honorary Secretary as an emergency measure, has to be looked at in the light of the POSH Act, 2013, wherein Section 12 thereof, mandates immediate steps to be taken by the employer (herein MCA) to prevent a hostile work environment and provides for a temporary measure to defuse it while the enquiry is underway”, it stated while holding that the suspension was a valid interim measure.

The Bench noted that the High Court by an earlier order had suspended the respondent’s decision to convene a meeting, which was not paid heed to, and as such the said Meeting which was ostensibly held for administrative necessity for Cricket trials, was only an attempt to subvert the orders of the Court as the suspension of the Honorary Secretary was revoked and the appointment of the Ombudsman sought to be by-passed. “As such, all resolutions arrived at in the 07.09.2026 meeting are non-est in law”, it added.

The Bench concluded the matter by declaring the Special General Meeting Notice dated June 27, 2026 invalid and the resolutions as non-est in law. The Bench did not entertain the petition challenging the appointment of the Ombudsman, by the Honorary Secretary. The Bench further dismissed the challenge to the suspension of the Honorary Secretary and upheld the order of suspension.

Cause Title: James P.K. Sangma v. Rayanold Kharkamni, Honorary Secretary (Neutral Citation: 2026:MLHC:1217)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocates R.S. Rao, Dr. N. Mozika, Advocate M. Myrchiang

Respondent: Senior Advocate A.K. Bhuyan, Advocates Dr. P.P. Medhi, K.V. Kharlyngdoh, W. Dkhar, S. Khound, G.C. Marboh

Click here to read/download Order