Can ₹200 Decide a Cricket Presidency?
By Sharan Kumar
In the grand theatre of Karnataka cricket, where power
struggles are rarely subtle and where elections often resemble Test matches
played on crumbling fifth-day pitches, a new absurdity has emerged. The
nomination of K.N. Shantha Kumar for the post of President of the Karnataka
State Cricket Association (KSCA) was rejected because the sports body he
represented had an outstanding subscription arrear of ₹200. Not a large unpaid
bill, not a financial scandal, not even a technical violation of significant consequence,
just ₹200 spread across four years, an amount that would barely buy two cups of
filter coffee on M.G. Road.
Yet, in the scrutiny room of KSCA’s election
machinery, this tiny figure proved fatal.
The question now naturally arises: can such a trivial
arrear legitimately topple a nomination for one of the most important
administrative seats in Karnataka cricket? The answer, as courts across the
country have consistently stated in similar disputes, depends on a blend of
what the rules say and what fairness demands.
Every sports body, including the KSCA, operates under
a constitution that defines who may contest, who may vote, and what constitutes
“good standing.” While some constitutions are strict enough to insist that
members must have paid all dues before filing nominations, very few intend for
the democratic process to be derailed by minuscule, inadvertent, or curable
lapses. Courts in India have repeatedly held that nomination scrutiny should
focus on substantive compliance rather than petty technicalities. When a member
body is in arrears by a nominal sum, especially one as insignificant as ₹200,
the judicial view has consistently been that such a lapse does not justify
exclusion unless the rules expressly leave no room for discretion.
In this case, the arrear belongs not to Shantha Kumar
personally, but to the association he represents. Indian courts have long taken
the view that penalising an individual for a clerical or administrative lapse
of an institution is unjust unless the governing rules explicitly impose such
vicarious liability. Even in situations involving larger amounts, courts have
leaned towards giving the candidate an opportunity to regularise the dues. The
principle of natural justice, that no
one should be condemned unheard, plays a decisive role in such scenarios.
Rejecting a nomination without giving the concerned member a chance to clear a
small due is considered both unreasonable and disproportionate.
This is where the matter becomes particularly
troubling for KSCA. The rejection of a presidential nomination over ₹200
creates an impression not of strict adherence to rules, but of overzealous
technical policing or worse, of an
attempt to keep a particular contender out of the fray. Sports body elections
in India have a long history of factional intrigue, and courts have often
intervened when procedural objections appear to be deliberately timed or
selectively applied. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that a dues
arrear of such negligible magnitude would not ordinarily be seen as a
legitimate barrier to contesting, unless someone was looking very hard for a
reason to erect one.
If Shantha Kumar chooses to challenge the decision in
court, the legal terrain ahead is far more favourable to him than to his
detractors. Judicial precedent strongly suggests that such a rejection is
unlikely to withstand scrutiny. Courts have struck down disqualifications based
on minor dues, clerical oversights, and curable defects, emphasising that the
democratic will of the members must take precedence over hyper-technical
objections. Unless the KSCA constitution is drafted with an extraordinary level
of rigidity, one that explicitly declares even the smallest arrear fatal to a
nomination, and unless this standard has been applied uniformly to all, the
rejection stands on shaky ground.
More importantly, courts consider the doctrine of
proportionality: the punishment must fit the default. Disqualifying a potential
president over ₹200 fails that test spectacularly. It is akin to declaring a
batsman out because a gust of wind dislodged the bails.
The larger concern, however, extends beyond one
nomination or one candidate. When sports bodies begin treating petty lapses as
disqualifying crimes, the credibility of the election process suffers.
Democratic competition becomes secondary to procedural gamesmanship, and the
administration of sport which should be
guided by transparency, integrity, and inclusiveness risks descending into
pettiness.
Shantha Kumar, should he move court, carries with him
not just a complaint, but a considerable weight of legal principle on his side.
The judiciary has consistently protected the right to contest unless a
substantial violation is proven. A ₹200 arrear, especially one belonging to an
institution rather than the candidate himself, hardly qualifies as substantial.
His chances of securing relief are, in truth, very strong.
At a time when cricket governance demands maturity and
fairness, KSCA’s decision raises uncomfortable questions. Should the fate of
its presidency hinge on a negligible subscription lapse? Or should elections be
decided on merit, vision, experience, and the confidence of the voting members?
The answer, both legally and ethically, seems obvious.
Democracy cannot, and should not, be reduced to a bookkeeping exercise where
₹200 becomes the line between participation and exclusion. In this saga, it is
not Shantha Kumar’s eligibility that appears suspect, but the wisdom of the
decision to reject him.
Comments
Post a Comment