In an intra-court appeal filed before the Delhi High Court, challenging a judgment and order dated 10-02-2023 by a Single Judge whereby a writ petition by respondent 1 (Ski and Snowboard India) was allowed and an office order, dated 13-10-2023, passed by President, Indian Olympic Association (appellant 1) was quashed, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia upheld the judgment of the Single Judge while making modifications and holding that the Indian Olympic Association’s argument was based on a misreading of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (2025 Act).
By the said office order, an ad hoc committee comprising four members was appointed to manage the affairs of Ski and Snowboard India, including the selection of athletes and the submission of entries for sportspersons’ participation in international events. This committee was also responsible for conducting the elections of the executive committee of respondent 1.
It was held in the impugned order that respondent 1 was an independent body registered as a society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and that the Indian Olympic Association did not have any jurisdiction/power/authority to replace the executive committee of respondent 1 by appointing an ad hoc committee to manage its affairs. The Single Judge had also appointed a retired Judge of this Court to list out the eligible members and conduct an election of respondent 1.
The impugned judgment was challenged on the ground that Article 17.5 of the Rules and Regulations of the Indian Olympic Association permitted the appointment of an ad hoc committee of respondent 1, and that the direction issued for conducting the elections was contrary to the 2025 Act, and the National Sports Governance (National Sports Bodies) Rules, 2026 (2026 Rules).
The Court observed that the Indian Olympic Association’s contention that Article 17.5 of the Rules and Regulations vested power in it to appoint an ad hoc committee was misconceived since it was based on a complete misreading of the provisions contained in Article 17.5. It was stated that the Indian Olympic Association was a society whose affairs were governed by the provisions of the memorandum of association as well as the Rules and Regulations framed by it.
The Court noted that the said Rules were framed to govern its own affairs and that Article 17.5 had to be interpreted and understood only in this context. Article 17.5 stated that all required Commissions/Committees were to be formed by the President to be ratified by the Executive Council or by the Annual/Special General Meeting. The Court opined that the Commissions/Committees referred to that of the Indian Olympic Association, and that the phrase ‘Commissions/Committees’ could not be interpreted to include the committees of any other society or body.
Regarding the argument for impeaching the impugned judgment, the Court stated that respondent 1 was not a National Sports Federation recognised by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, and that it was not even a National Sports Body as per Section 3 of the 2025 Act, which is why the provisions of the said Act were neither applicable to respondent 1 nor were its affairs governed by the 2025 Act unless it gets itself established as a National Sports Body. It was noted that respondent 1 was not recognised as a National Sports Federation even under the old regime of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.
Further, the Court rejected the Indian Olympic Association’s submission that the direction for holding elections was not only untenable but would also infringe the provisions of the 2025 Act since respondent 1 was neither a recognised National Sports Body nor a National Sports Federation. Another reason was that respondent 1 was an independent body whose affairs were governed by its memorandum of association, by-laws, and Rules.
The Court opined that the arguments of the Indian Olympic Association were based on an absolute misreading of the provisions of the 2025 Act and the Rules, since respondent 1 was neither a recognised National Sports Federation nor a National Sports Body. It was said that the need to fulfil the statutory requirements would arise only once respondent 1 intended to be recognised as a National Sports Body.
It was noted that the Single Judge, in the impugned order, had relied upon Bihar Olympic Association v. President, Indian Olympic Association & Anr. (2025) SCC OnLine Del 1224 to hold that the Indian Olympic Association did not have any authority or power to appoint any ad hoc committee for the functions of an independent body or association. The Court stated that it agreed with the reasoning and conclusion of the Single Judge.
Regarding the direction given to the Indian Olympic Association for the payment of the fee of the returning officer for conducting the election of respondent 1, the Court opined that since respondent 1 was an independent body, saddling the responsibility for bearing the expenses of conducting the elections on the Indian Olympic Association could not be justified.
The Court upheld the impugned judgment to the extent that the office order was quashed, the observation that the ad hoc committee stood dissolved, and the direction for conducting the elections of respondent 1. Whereas the direction to the Indian Olympic Association for paying the fee to the returning officer was set aside, and respondent 1 was directed to pay the same. Thus, the impugned judgment was upheld with modifications, and the appeal was disposed of.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Gopal Jain (Sr. Adv), Ms. Aashita Khanna, Ms. Aanya Agarwal, Mr. Vidushpat Singhania
For Respondents – Ms. Neha Singh, Mr. Udit Dedhiya (SPC), Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Mr. Preyansh Gupta, Mr. Amit Rana (GP)
