While upholding the disaffiliation of the Maharashtra Wrestling Association (Petitioner), the Bombay High Court has refused to set aside the order passed by the Returning Officer of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI), and declined the Petitioner’s prayer seeking disaffiliation of the President of the Maharashtra Rajya Kustigir Sangh (Respondent No.5). The Court recorded that Maharashtra Rajya Kustigir Sangh was now affiliated by WFI and had also obtained membership of the Indian Olympic Association.
The Court held that that a National Sports Federation such as WFI, though not “State” within the meaning of Article 12, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where it discharges public functions connected with regulation, promotion and control of sport and representation of India in international events. Further, suspension by the Government of India of the “ongoing activities” and day-to-day administration of WFI, through an Oversight Committee or otherwise, does not amount to suspension of the General Council, which under the WFI Constitution is the principal and policy-making body, particularly in the absence of any statutory or constitutional power shown to suspend that General Council.
The Court also held that where the Constitution of WFI vests the power of disaffiliation in the General Council upon compliance with the prescribed procedure, and the affiliated unit has been served with a show-cause notice, given an opportunity to respond, and considered through the disciplinary mechanism, the writ court will confine itself to examining the fairness of the decision-making process and will not sit in appeal over the merits of the disciplinary findings. On the facts, the process leading to withdrawal of the petitioner’s affiliation was held to be legally sustainable.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Manujsha Deshpande first rejected the preliminary objection to maintainability and held that though WFI may not be “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 because it is a body established for encouraging, promoting and controlling wrestling activities in the country and for arranging participation of Indian wrestling teams in international events, thereby discharging public functions. The Bench also rejected the objection based on alternative remedy, holding that the petition was not a challenge to the election process of WFI as such, but a challenge to the petitioner’s disaffiliation.
On merits, the Bench closely examined the Constitution of WFI and held that the General Council is the principal and policy-making body of WFI, whereas the Executive Committee exercises executive control and carries out day-to-day functions. Reading the Government communications with the scheme of the WFI Constitution, the Bench held that what was suspended or kept in abeyance was the discharge of powers by the Executive Committee in relation to day-to-day management, and there was no suspension of the General Council. The Bench further observed that no provision was shown enabling the Government of India to suspend the General Council of the Society and therefore rejected the petitioner’s contention that the General Council lacked competence to act.
Also Read SAM Partners Mukul Baveja and Apoorva Murali Join Trilegal in Its Intellectual Property Practice
The Bench also found that the petitioner had been issued a show-cause notice under Article-XXVI of the WFI Constitution, had responded through its secretary, and had participated in the disciplinary process. It held that, in writ jurisdiction, it would examine the fairness of the decision-making process and not reappreciate the evidence on merits. On that standard, the Bench found the findings of the Disciplinary Committee to be of a substantial nature and held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice or failure to follow the procedure contemplated by the WFI Constitution. The allegation of political vendetta was not accepted in the absence of proof and in the absence of the concerned persons being impleaded.
The Bench further observed that the Returning Officer’s order was a balanced order because, faced with rival claims from Maharashtra and a serious deadlock, he did not permit either faction to nominate members to the electoral college. The Bench also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the subsequent ratification by the General Council on Dec 21, 2023 of the earlier decision to disaffiliate the petitioner and affiliate respondent No.5, and that such ratification had attained finality.
Briefly, the petitioner, Maharashtra Wrestling Association, a trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and affiliated with the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) since 1960, challenged the order passed by the Returning Officer of WFI, the Resolution passed in the Extraordinary General Meeting of the General Council of WFI, and the report of the Disciplinary Committee, by which its affiliation was withdrawn and respondent No.5 was treated as the affiliated State body for Maharashtra.
The petitioner contended, inter alia, that after the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports suspended the ongoing activities of WFI on Jan 21, 2023 and appointed an Oversight Committee, WFI had no authority to initiate or continue disciplinary action, disaffiliate the petitioner, or recognize any rival body. The petitioner also alleged breach of natural justice, lack of reasons, and mala fides, while seeking, conversely, disaffiliation of respondent No.5.
The background was that WFI had earlier dissolved the petitioner by a decision dated June 30, 2022, but that action had already been set aside by the High Court on Nov 09, 2022 as unreasonable, illegal and unenforceable, while permitting WFI to take recourse to remedies available in law. Thereafter, WFI issued a fresh show-cause notice alleging, among other things, that no election had been held after 2015, annual audited statements and annual reports had not been submitted, national competitions had not been properly conducted, and there were irregularities relating to commercial tournaments and age-fudging of wrestlers.
The Disciplinary Committee submitted its report recommending withdrawal of affiliation, which recommendation was considered by the General Council, followed by the order withdrawing the petitioner’s affiliation and approving affiliation of respondent No.5. The Returning Officer thereafter rejected both rival Maharashtra factions from nominating members to the electoral college.
