The Delhi High Court through Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, has held that courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot ordinarily assume or substitute the functions of autonomous bodies such as sports federations, in the absence of strong and cogent reasons.
Allowing appeals filed by the All India Football Federation, the Court set aside a Single Judge’s direction reconstituting the Ethics Committee and appointing new members, including a retired High Court judge. The Bench held that such judicial interference amounted to unwarranted encroachment upon the autonomy of a registered society governed by its own constitution, rules, and regulations.
The Court noted that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 enjoys functional autonomy, and its internal governance including constitution of committees must ordinarily be left to its own framework. While acknowledging that courts may intervene in exceptional cases, the Bench clarified that such intervention is permissible only where there exist compelling circumstances such as demonstrable mala fides, bias, or illegality. Mere apprehensions or absence of prejudice are insufficient to justify judicial substitution of internal mechanisms.
Examining the facts, the Court noted that the primary grievance raised was against a particular member of the Ethics Committee, who had already been replaced by the federation with a retired High Court judge. It further observed that no finding of mala fides, bias, or illegality had been recorded by the Single Judge. In such circumstances, directing wholesale reconstitution of the committee was held to be legally unsustainable.
The Bench also emphasised that the federation had established a multi-tier adjudicatory mechanism, including an appellate body headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, which sufficiently safeguarded fairness and impartiality. Consequently, apprehensions of bias were found to be unfounded.
Setting aside the impugned order, the Court restored the Ethics Committee constituted by the Federation and directed that the pending complaints be adjudicated by it in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all parties, preferably within eight weeks.
Appearances:
For Appellant: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta with Ms. Aashita Khanna, Mr. Neil M Goswami, Mr.Vidushpat Singhania, Mr. Ritwik Prakash, Ms. Aanya Agarwal, Advs.
For Respondent: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Sr.Adv. with Ms. Niharika Tiwari and Mr. Ranjeet Pawar, Advs. for R-1.
