Shillong, Jun 28: James PK Sangma, the Meghalaya Cricket Association President, has been overstepping his authority by invoking emergency powers when there has been no justifiable reason to do so, two Apex Council members said in a statement today.
Sangma had invoked his emergency powers as President to suspend Honorary Secretary Rayonald Kharkamni yesterday following Friday’s ruling by the Meghalaya State Commission for Women (MSCW). The commission had ruled that Kharkamni had not taken sufficient action when a complaint of sexual harassment had been made in December (before Sangma took over as President) by members of the U-23 women’s cricket team.
“The matter before the cricketing fraternity does not concern whether allegations of misconduct ought to be investigated or whether those found guilty after due process should be held accountable. No reasonable person would oppose accountability where wrongdoing has been properly established,” the statement said.
According to the MCA constitution, the President can take actions “in an emergency” but what conditions would amount to an emergency are not clearly spelled out, other than to say that these emergency powers should be used to “safeguard the interest of the association and to carry on its activities.”
The statement was signed by Vice-President Rajiv Bareh and Joint Secretary A Mebanphira Swer. They pointed to the MCA’s grievance redressal mechanism that states that the Apex Council has the power to issue a show-cause notice to any member who has committed misconduct or indiscipline and then refer the matter to the MCA’s Ombudsman. Sangma, however, bypassed the Apex Council and acted on his own authority.
The MCA is “not a presidentially governed institution, it is a body governed collectively through its Apex Council under the supreme authority of its General Body,” the statement read.
There is even a dispute on the Ombudsman – Sangma contends that Justice (Retd) BD Agarwal was legally appointed but Bareh and Swer argued that an Ombudsman can only be appointed, as per the constitution, during an annual general meeting and this is not the case with Justice Agarwal.
Bareh and Swer also said that disciplinary action (such as suspension) cannot be taken without a show-cause notice first. However, Sangma suspended Kharkamni with immediate effect yesterday and gave him three days to show cause why further action should not be taken against him.
The lack of an Ombudsman and internal complaints committee resulted in the aggrieved women cricketers making their complaint to the MCA via the association’s official email in December 2025 and that is where the matter lay until May when the complainants approached the MSCW. It was only then, Sangma has said, that he came to know about the sexual harassment. Bareh and Swer (who were elected with Sangma and assumed responsibility in January) stated that, as the complaint was made to the MCA’s official email account, to which the President had access, it is not reasonable to blame only the previous Apex Council for inaction. (Kharkamni was Honorary Secretary of the previous body and was reelected unopposed to the current one.)
The statement said that Sangma appeared to be acting “simultaneously as complainant, investigator, prosecutor and disciplinary authority. The separation of functions in the constitution is deliberate and must be respected.”
Suspending Kharkamni without due process was not part of the MSCW’s order, Bareh and Swer also maintained. “The commission itself recommended that action be taken in accordance with the MCA constitution. This recommendation cannot be treated as authorisation to bypass the very constitutional procedures it refers to. A recommendation to act constitutionally is not a recommendation to act unconstitutionally.”
Other points raised include disagreement with the way the MSCW addressed its order to the MCA President rather than the body as a whole; concern over Sangma’s announcement of the suspension to the media (as he did yesterday) before disciplinary measures have been taken; and a question as to whether the previous administration could reasonably have been expected to act when it was in a transitional phase ready to hand over charge to the new body (the election was held in December after the sexual harassment complaint was made and Sangma and the new body took charge in January).
“Today the action is directed against particular individuals. If the constitutional safeguards are disregarded today, the same precedent may be used against any member tomorrow. It is the constitution, not the discretion of any single office bearer, that protects every member of this association,” Bareh and Swer said. “The rule of law within this Association must prevail over the discretion of any individual. The Apex Council and the General Body must discharge their constitutional duty, restore institutional order, and ensure that justice, if it is to mean anything, must be seen to be done through lawful and constitutional means.”
