The Supreme Court has cleared the way for sweeping changes to Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC), ruling that almost all provisions of the proposed Bill are consistent with the Constitution. Only two clauses were found to be constitutionally problematic, and both can be corrected through amendments proposed by the Attorney General. If these changes are made [...]
While the country has been placed under lockdown, making newspaper distribution impossible, the Sunday Times team produced your favourite Sunday newspaper in digital format to bring you the latest news, feature stories and political commentaries. We are happy to announce that we are giving you free access to our digital paper. Click here to access the free epaper . If you like to be a subscriber to our regular epaper please click here .
The Supreme Court has cleared the way for sweeping changes to Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC), ruling that almost all provisions of the proposed Bill are consistent with the Constitution.
Only two clauses were found to be constitutionally problematic, and both can be corrected through amendments proposed by the Attorney General. If these changes are made at the Committee stage, Parliament can pass the Bill with a simple majority. Otherwise, a two-thirds majority will be required. The ruling NPP government has a comfortable two-third majority in parliament and passing the Bill with or without amendments wouldn’t be seen as a problem.
The Court identified that the present Transformation Committee's role is temporary
The Bill proposes a new statutory body, Sri Lanka Cricket, as the sole authority governing the sport. It will have a 14-member Board comprising seven Independent Directors, selected on professional merit by a seven-member Nominations Committee, and seven Elected Directors representing member clubs and Provincial Associations.
At least two Independent Directors must be women, and the Chairperson must be selected from among them. The Auditor General will audit the institution’s accounts, while a Compliance Officer will report directly to the Board. Cricket will also come under the new Act, outside the Sports Law of 1973.
The legislation was challenged through six petitions, including one filed by former SLC President Thilanga Sumathipala. Several former national cricketers and others intervened in support of the Bill.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Janak de Silva, Arjuna Obeyesekere and K.M. Gihan H. Kulatunga heard the petitions over three days in October. The Court stressed that its task was to determine whether the proposed legislation violated the Constitution.
The petitioners argued that giving cricket a separate law while other sports remained under the existing Sports Law violated the constitutional guarantee of equality. The Court agreed that cricket’s popularity alone was not enough to justify separate treatment. However, it found several other reasons for doing so.
Cricket has a following unmatched by any other sport in the country, carries international obligations, including regular tours and ICC tournaments, and operates on a much larger financial scale. Its annual revenue exceeds Rs. 12.5 billion, with a balance sheet of more than Rs. 20 billion. The sport is also exposed to betting and corruption.
The judges noted that more than 15 interim committees, competent authorities and advisory committees had been appointed to oversee cricket since 1999, often leading to litigation.
They also referred to the 2023 report of the Cabinet Sub-Committee headed by President’s Counsel Ali Sabry, which found that a group of connected individuals had used SLC’s constitution to maintain control of the institution. Parliament had also unanimously passed a resolution on November 9, 2023, calling for transparent and corruption-free cricket administration.
An argument that no SLC official had been convicted of corruption was rejected as irrelevant to the need for safeguards. The Court said Parliament did not have to wait for criminal convictions before addressing weaknesses that could allow corruption to flourish.
Two clauses need amendments Clause 29 – Existing club memberships
The Bill originally proposed ending the memberships of all existing SLC members when the new law came into force. The Court ruled that this violated the right to freedom of association under Article 14(1)(c). Citing an Indian Supreme Court judgment, it held that the right to form an association also includes the right to continue it with the members chosen by its founders.
Under the proposed amendment, existing members will become general members of the new institution and have 30 days to apply for registration under one of the categories listed in the Bill.
Clause 7(l) – Eligibility to become a Director
The original clause disqualified those who had provided financial services to SLC from becoming Directors but did not impose the same restriction on other professionals who had served the institution.
The Court found this distinction arbitrary and inconsistent with the equality guarantee.
The amendment will extend the disqualification to anyone who has provided professional services to Sri Lanka Cricket.
Other challenges rejected Ownership of assets
The Court found no evidence that SLC’s assets were privately owned by its members. Its constitution requires its funds and property to be used for promoting cricket, while the Ali Sabry report described those administering the institution as trustees of a public trust. The Bill, therefore, does not transfer private property to the State.
Independent Chairperson and casting vote
The Court found nothing unreasonable in requiring the Chairperson to be an Independent Director, noting similar arrangements for licensed banks and listed companies. The Chairperson will have one vote like other Directors and a casting vote only when the Board is evenly divided. In the Chairperson’s absence, this power passes to the Deputy Chairperson, who must be an Elected Director.
The casting vote cannot be used on decisions requiring a two-thirds majority, including the removal of a Director or changes to the tournament structure.
The existing system distributes 147 votes among clubs and associations. The Ali Sabry report had highlighted so-called ‘paper clubs’ that enjoyed voting rights despite having no grounds. The new system will reduce the number of votes to around 49. The Court accepted that voting rights could reasonably be based on a club’s actual participation in competitive cricket.
It also compared the proposed structure with other major cricket boards: Australia has six votes, Pakistan 17, England and Wales 18, and India 38.
The petitioners questioned the President’s position as Patron and the presence of two State-linked representatives on the seven-member Nominations Committee. The Court described the Patron’s role as ceremonial and noted that the two Government-linked members could neither form a quorum nor determine decisions on their own.
It also rejected concerns over the Sports Minister’s powers under Clause 44 to suspend or remove a Director. Such action requires a preliminary investigation by a three-member committee, followed by a formal inquiry conducted by a retired Supreme Court judge. The Minister must act in accordance with the findings, and any decision can be challenged in court.
The judges pointed out that the existing Sports Law gives the Minister much wider powers, including the authority to suspend a sports body’s registration and appoint an authority of his choice to run it. Such intervention took place in cricket in April 2026. Those powers will no longer apply to cricket under the proposed Act. The Court therefore held that the Bill would narrow, rather than expand, Government intervention.
The petitioners failed to identify any specific ICC regulation that the Bill would violate. The Court noted that the proposed law requires SLC to honour its ICC obligations. It also cited Pakistan, whose cricket board operates under greater Government involvement but remains an ICC Full Member. The judges found no sufficient basis to conclude that the Bill would automatically threaten Sri Lanka’s ICC membership.
The Court also rejected claims that the present Transformation Committee could use the new law to retain control. Its role is temporary. Applications for Independent Directors must be called within 45 days and the first General Meeting held within 180 days. No positions are reserved for committee members, and its powers end when the first Board takes office.
Print Edition – The Sunday Times, Sri Lanka
Loading comments…