Thursday, 5 November 2026
Supreme Court of India
Constitutional Law

Supreme Court Leaves Cricket Association Election Dispute to Rajasthan High Court, Fixes Four Weeks for Appeal

Published: · NyayVidhan · 2 min read

The Supreme Court granted permission to file the special leave petitions of Rajendra Singh and another against the State of Rajasthan and others, condoned the delay and disposed of the petitions. As the High Court is already seized of the matter concerning the election of the State Cricket Association, the Court left all contentions open for consideration there (paras 1-3, 5). It directed the appellate authority to decide the petitioners' appeal against the order dated 03.07.2026 within four weeks (para 4).

Supreme Court Leaves Cricket Association Election Dispute to Rajasthan High Court, Fixes Four Weeks for Appeal

Judgment Intelligence

Disposed Of
Rajendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 63878 of 2026
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
4 November 2026
Bench
Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Relevant Acts & Sections
Constitution of India — Article 136
Final Outcome

Special leave petitions disposed of: delay condoned; all contentions left open before the High Court; the appellate authority to decide the petitioners' appeal against the order dated 03.07.2026 within four weeks from 04.11.2026; pending applications, if any, disposed of (paras 2-5).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 4 November 2026 · Court's copy

Key holdings

  1. The High Court is seized of the matter concerning the election of the State Cricket Association (para 3).
  2. All contentions of the petitioners are left open for the High Court, which the Court expects to hear all concerned (para 3).
  3. The appellate authority must decide the appeal against the order dated 03.07.2026 in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of the order (para 4).
  4. Delay was condoned and the special leave petitions were disposed of with pending applications (paras 2, 5).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitions arise out of orders of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur dated 02.07.2026 in SBCWP No. 8936/2026 and 01.07.2026 in DBCWP (PIL) No. 2586/2026, as the cause title records. The order states that the High Court is seized of the matter concerning the election of the State Cricket Association (para 3). The petitioners had also preferred an appeal against an order dated 03.07.2026 (para 4). The order does not describe the High Court's directions, the order of 03.07.2026 or the appellate authority.

Court's Findings

The Court granted permission to file the petition and condoned the delay (paras 1-2). It noted that the High Court is seized of the matter concerning the election of the State Cricket Association and that ‘all the contentions sought to be raised by the petitioners can be appropriately agitated before the High Court’ (para 3). It said it had ‘no reason to doubt’ that the High Court will give all concerned an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, and left all contentions open for its consideration (para 3). On the appeal against the order dated 03.07.2026, it directed the appellate authority to decide it in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of the order (para 4). The order records no view on the merits of the election dispute.

Legal Principle

The order lays down no new rule. It shows the Court declining to examine an election dispute in a special leave petition while the High Court is already seized of it, leaving every contention open there (para 3) and fixing a time limit of four weeks for the separate appeal before the appellate authority (para 4).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

This order shows how the Court may deal with a special leave petition in an election dispute that is already before the High Court: it left every contention open there rather than examine them itself (para 3). It also fixed four weeks from the date of the order for the appellate authority to decide the petitioners' separate appeal, with the direction that it be decided in accordance with law (para 4). A reader should note what the order does not do: it expresses no view on the merits, and it does not say how the appeal or the High Court proceedings should be decided.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt