Background and the Connected Proceedings

The Meghalaya High Court considered three connected writ petitions arising from serious disagreements within the Meghalaya Cricket Association (MCA), particularly between its President, James P.K. Sangma, and Honorary Secretary, Rayanold Kharkamni. The dispute involved the appointment and functioning of the Association’s Ombudsman, findings and recommendations concerning sexual harassment, the handling of complaints, and the President’s decision to suspend the Honorary Secretary.

The judgment was delivered by Justice H.S. Thangkhiew on 30 October 2026 in WP(C) Nos. 294, 321 and 377 of 2026.

The President’s petition, WP(C) No. 294 of 2026, sought recognition of the Ombudsman’s appointment and defended the suspension. The Honorary Secretary and other office-bearers challenged the Ombudsman’s appointment in WP(C) No. 321 of 2026, while Kharkamni separately questioned his suspension in WP(C) No. 377 of 2026.

Dispute Over the Appointment of the Ombudsman

The MCA’s 26th Apex Council Meeting, held on 7 March 2026, recorded a decision to appoint retired Justice B.D. Agarwal as the Association’s Ombudsman. An offer letter was issued on 9 March 2026, the appointee accepted it, and the appointment was communicated to the Board of Control for Cricket in India on 10 March 2026.

The Honorary Secretary’s side argued that the MCA Constitution required the Ombudsman to be appointed at the Annual General Meeting under Rules 25(b)(vi) and 40, and that the President had bypassed the prescribed procedure. It was also contended that the Apex Council meeting could not validly make the appointment and that the subsequent challenge to the appointment was justified.

The Court noted that the notice convening the 7 March meeting had been issued by the Honorary Secretary himself and expressly included the Ombudsman’s appointment as an agenda item. The minutes recorded the decision, and the Honorary Secretary and other office-bearers had participated in the meeting. The Court also took account of their earlier acceptance of the Ombudsman mechanism and the fact that the appointment had been acted upon and communicated to the BCCI.

The Court acknowledged that the MCA rules contemplated appointment at an AGM. Nevertheless, it held that the challenge, in the circumstances, was undermined by the petitioners’ own conduct.

It also found that the 9 May 2026 meeting, which purported to place the appointment in abeyance, was defective. The notice had been issued without the President’s concurrence as required by Rule 18(c)(iv), and the meeting did not satisfy the quorum requirement under Rule 30(b). The Court therefore rejected the attempt to undo the appointment through that meeting.

Challenge to the Honorary Secretary’s Suspension

Kharkamni contended that the President had no authority to suspend an elected office-bearer unilaterally. Relying on Rule 41(b) of the MCA Constitution, he argued that a complaint against a member or administrator had to be placed before the Apex Council for a prima facie assessment before disciplinary action could be initiated.

According to him, the prescribed process had not been followed and the President had exceeded the powers conferred by Rule 18(a).

The President’s case was that the suspension was an immediate protective and administrative step taken in an emergency, rather than a final disciplinary determination. The disciplinary matter had subsequently been referred to the Ombudsman, before whom the Honorary Secretary would have an opportunity to respond.

The President relied on the findings and directions of the Meghalaya State Commission for Women (MSCW), including its successive orders calling for action in relation to sexual-harassment complaints.

The Court distinguished between the final disciplinary process contemplated by Rule 41(b) and an interim measure taken to safeguard the Association during an ongoing crisis. It construed Rule 18(a), which empowers the President to take emergency measures to protect the Association’s interests, in the context of the obligations arising under the POSH Act, 2013.

Section 12 of the POSH Act and the Need for Interim Protection

The central statutory provision considered in relation to the suspension was Section 12 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The Court referred to the provision as requiring immediate steps by the employer during the pendency of an inquiry and as recognising the need for temporary measures to address the situation while the inquiry proceeds.

The Court took note of MSCW Order No. 522 dated 26 June 2026, which recorded an alleged deliberate cover-up involving the suppression of official complaint emails dating from December 2025.

The Court did not treat the suspension as a final finding of guilt against the Honorary Secretary. Rather, it considered the measure against the background of the Commission’s findings, the need to protect complainants and evidence, and the referral of the formal disciplinary inquiry to the Ombudsman.

On that basis, the Court held that the President’s exercise of emergency powers under Rule 18(a) could not be characterised as arbitrary. The suspension was an interim administrative measure intended to address the immediate situation while the formal process remained to be completed.

The Court accordingly rejected the challenge to the suspension.

Court’s Observations on the Meetings Held During Pending Proceedings

The Court also examined the legality of the MCA meetings and resolutions dated 9 May and 7 September 2026.

It found that the resolutions passed at the 9 May meeting were unsustainable for want of the President’s concurrence and the required quorum.

The 7 September meeting had proceeded despite an interim order of the Court suspending the decision to convene it. The Court considered that meeting, which among other things sought to revoke the suspension and bypass the Ombudsman, to be an attempt to subvert the subsisting judicial directions.

The resolutions passed at that meeting were therefore held to be non est in law.

The Court further observed that the Ombudsman’s appointment was not strictly in accordance with the MCA Constitution’s AGM requirement. However, in view of the intervening events and the need to maintain a functioning dispute-resolution mechanism, it directed that the Ombudsman should continue to function de facto until the matter was taken up at the next AGM for the necessary process.

Directions Issued by the High Court

The Court allowed WP(C) No. 294 of 2026 and declared the Special General Meeting notice dated 27 June 2026 invalid. It also declared the resolutions passed on 9 May and 7 September 2026 illegal and non est in law.

The challenge to the Ombudsman’s appointment in WP(C) No. 321 of 2026 was not entertained in the circumstances of the case.

WP(C) No. 377 of 2026, challenging the Honorary Secretary’s suspension, was dismissed and the suspension order dated 27 June 2026 was upheld.

The Ombudsman was permitted to function de facto until the next AGM considers the matter.

The Honorary Secretary and the other concerned respondents were directed to hand over the Association’s assets within two weeks, including digital credentials and the official email identity.

Importantly, the Court directed the MCA to ensure strict implementation of the POSH Act, 2013, and to put appropriate safety protocols in place at the earliest, preferably within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

Relevant Extract from the Judgment

In paragraph 16 of James P.K. Sangma v. Rayanold Kharkamni and connected matters, WP(C) Nos. 294, 321 and 377 of 2026, 2026:MLHC:1217, decided on 30 October 2026, the Meghalaya High Court observed:

“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.”

The Court further concluded in the same paragraph that the MSCW’s order had noted the suppression of complaint emails and that the President’s duty of care under Rule 18(a) justified interim suspension to protect the evidence and complainants while the formal inquiry was before the Ombudsman.

This passage is significant because it explains why the Court did not treat the internal disciplinary procedure under Rule 41(b) as preventing all immediate protective action. The Court upheld the temporary measure on the facts before it; it did not determine the Honorary Secretary’s ultimate disciplinary liability.

Significance of the Decision

The decision illustrates the distinction between interim protective action and final disciplinary punishment in the context of workplace sexual-harassment complaints.

It recognises that an organisation may need to take temporary steps to protect complainants, preserve evidence and prevent a hostile environment while the formal inquiry is pending, where the applicable governing rules confer emergency powers and the statutory framework requires interim protection.

The ruling should not be read as dispensing with the prescribed disciplinary process or as conferring an unrestricted power to suspend elected office-bearers. The Court’s conclusion rested on the particular emergency power in Rule 18(a), the circumstances recorded by the State Commission for Women, the requirements of Section 12 of the POSH Act, and the fact that the suspension was interim rather than a final adjudication.

Case Details

Case: James P.K. Sangma v. Rayanold Kharkamni and connected matters

Court: High Court of Meghalaya

Judge: Justice H.S. Thangkhiew

Case Numbers: WP(C) Nos. 294, 321 and 377 of 2026

Neutral Citation: 2026:MLHC:1217

Date of Decision: 30 October 2026