Delhi High Court Sets Aside Suspension of TTFI Secretary General, Orders Independent Inquiry Into Federation Affairs

The Delhi High Court has set aside the suspension of Table Tennis Federation of India (TTFI) Secretary General Kamlesh Mehta, holding that the disciplinary action taken against him violated the fundamental principles of natural justice.

The Court observed that the federation had failed to provide Mehta with prior notice or an opportunity of hearing before declaring him persona non grata and suspending him from office.

At the same time, the Court also ordered an independent inquiry into the functioning of the federation, noting serious allegations and deep-rooted governance concerns within the National Sports Federation.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav while hearing a writ petition filed by Kamlesh Mehta challenging the Executive Committee’s order dated January 28, 2026.

Through the impugned decision, Mehta had been declared persona non grata and suspended from functioning as Secretary General pending an inquiry by an Enquiry Committee constituted by the federation.

The Court ultimately quashed the suspension order as well as all consequential actions arising from it, including the constitution of the existing Enquiry Committee.

The dispute emerged against the backdrop of an ongoing power struggle and allegations of administrative irregularities within the TTFI.

Rival factions within the federation exchanged allegations concerning financial impropriety, procedural violations, conflict of interest and non-cooperation in the management of federation affairs.

The Court took note of the growing factionalism within the body and observed that internal disputes among office bearers had begun adversely affecting sports administration and governance.

In a significant observation concerning the state of affairs within the federation, the Court remarked:

“The Court cannot, shut its eyes to the aforenoted allegations being made by two highest office bearers of an NSF against each other, and having prima facie two factions within the federation, each fighting for control, power, and influence, with sports, sports-persons, and the nation taking the backseat.”

At the outset, the Court examined whether the writ petition itself was maintainable despite the presence of arbitration clauses in the federation’s governing structure.

Rejecting the objection raised by the federation, the High Court held that National Sports Federations discharge public functions connected with the promotion and administration of sports in the country and are therefore amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that issues involving transparency, fairness, accountability and democratic functioning in sports bodies carry substantial public importance and cannot be shielded from judicial scrutiny merely because such federations are formally structured as autonomous associations.

While scrutinising the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Mehta, the Court strongly criticised the manner in which the suspension order had been passed.

The Bench noted that no prior notice had been issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing had been granted before he was declared persona non grata and removed from his position.

The Court examined Clause 11(d) of the TTFI Memorandum of Association and held that even if the provision did not expressly mandate a prior hearing, the principles of natural justice would necessarily have to be read into such disciplinary provisions in order to ensure fairness and procedural propriety.

The Bench observed, “…..it can be concluded that even if, in arguendo, it is considered that Clause 11(d) of the MoA allows for action to be taken without granting an opportunity of hearing, the circumstances which were presented before the President and the Executive Committee were not such as would justify escaping the rigors of principles of natural justice.”

According to the Court, the disciplinary action carried serious civil and reputational consequences for the petitioner and therefore could not have been undertaken summarily without adhering to due process requirements.

The Court rejected the federation’s contention that emergent circumstances justified bypassing procedural safeguards.

It held that no extraordinary urgency existed that prevented the Executive Committee from issuing notice or granting a hearing before passing the suspension order.

The Court further noted that no irreversible institutional damage would have occurred had the federation followed basic procedural fairness before initiating action against Mehta.

Consequently, the Court quashed the January 28 suspension order and all subsequent actions arising from it.

However, despite granting relief to the petitioner, the High Court also expressed concern over the broader governance issues affecting the federation.

The Court observed that the allegations levelled against Mehta as well as those directed against other office bearers, including the President of TTFI, were serious and required independent examination.

In view of the gravity of the allegations and the apparent breakdown of internal functioning, the Court appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna Murari as an independent Enquiry Authority to examine the conduct and functioning of TTFI officials and office bearers.

The judgment contains important observations on the functioning and accountability of National Sports Federations in India.

The Court emphasised that federations entrusted with representing the country at national and international sporting events cannot function arbitrarily or opaquely.

It held that such bodies must adhere to constitutional principles of transparency, fairness and democratic governance.

The High Court also acknowledged broader concerns regarding factionalism and administrative disputes within sports bodies, observing that such conflicts ultimately harm athletes and undermine the larger interests of Indian sports.

The Court’s observations are likely to have wider implications for governance standards and internal disciplinary mechanisms across National Sports Federations in India.

The ruling is expected to serve as a significant precedent on the application of natural justice principles to disciplinary actions undertaken by autonomous sports federations and may influence future judicial scrutiny of sports governance in the country.

Case Title: Kamlesh Mehta v. Table Tennis Federation of India

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Date of Judgment: 11.05.2026