The Delhi High Court has questioned the eligibility of an office-bearer of the Bihar Chess Association to contest elections in light of his previous positions in the erstwhile association, while also seeking clarity on the recognition granted by the All India Chess Federation (AICF) to the newly registered Bihar association.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing a dispute concerning the constitution and recognition of the Bihar Chess Association and the eligibility of its office-bearers under the applicable sports regulations.
During the hearing, the Court noted that the association represented by one side was registered only in February 2024, whereas, prior to its registration, the affairs of chess in Bihar were being conducted by another association. The Court also noted that one of the respondents had admittedly held the post of Vice-President in the earlier association.
The Bench questioned whether the earlier tenure could be disregarded merely because the present association was registered subsequently. The Court observed that, at a given point in time, only one State association can represent a State before the apex national federation and asked whether the previous tenure of the concerned office-bearer ought to be counted for determining eligibility under the applicable sports rules.
The Court also examined the history of the Bihar Chess Association, including the earlier association registered in 1969, the subsequent dispute and split into rival factions, and the later registration of the new association in 2024. The respondents’ case was that the present association was a newly registered body formed in accordance with legal requirements and that its registration was granted on February 19, 2024, after completion of the requisite formalities.
The Bench further questioned whether the earlier association had formally changed its name or whether the later entity was, in law, a new association. The Court sought clarity on whether any change of name had been intimated to the Registrar as required and whether the continuity claimed by the parties was supported by the relevant records.
The role of the AICF also came under scrutiny. The Court questioned what action, if any, had been taken when the issue concerning the State-level association and its compliance with the applicable sports regulations was brought to the AICF’s notice. The Bench asked whether the AICF, having granted recognition as the national sports body, had examined the underlying facts when the recognition of the State association was allegedly inconsistent with the requirements of the National Sports Code.
The Court also examined the disputed history of elections in the association, including an alleged election held in 2014. During the hearing, the Bench referred to documents and minutes relied upon by the parties concerning the 2014 election and questioned whether such elections had taken place and whether the AICF had recognised the association on that basis.
The respondents maintained that the recognition of the Bihar association by the concerned authorities was separate from the question of the alleged 2014 election and argued that the present office-bearers were elected in 2024, when the newly registered association was already in existence.
The Bench, however, sought the relevant records and indicated that the factual position regarding previous elections, office-holding and the recognition of the State association needed to be clarified before the Court could proceed further.
During the hearing, the Court also directed the concerned office-bearers/officials to remain available and indicated that the matter would be taken up again after the relevant records and explanations were placed before it.
The Bench cautioned the parties that any attempt to mislead the Court or withhold relevant facts could have serious consequence.