Read Time: 08 minutes
The petition stated, “Given the history of disregard for the Sports Code… by the AITA, and the recalcitrance by the Ministry, it is unlikely that an independent and impartial elections is likely to be undertaken by AITA”. Therefore, the petitioners prayed for the appointment of a retired judge as an administrator of AITA.
Tennis champions Somdev Kishore Devvarman and Purav Mukul Raja approached the Delhi High Court challenging the proposed elections of the All India Tennis Association (AITA). The petition drew attention to “18 patent violations committed by the Respondent No. 2 herein, AITA of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011”.
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra, along with Advocates Jhanvi Dubey, Arunadhri Iyer, and Vaibhav Gulia, claimed that AITA failed to fulfill this obligation by not including representatives among the 25% of eminent sportspersons with outstanding merit possessing voting rights within the Central Council, General Assembly, or Executive Committee.
The petition also claimed that the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (Ministry) had failed to ensure the implementation of the Sports Code, leading to the conduct of elections for the Executive Committee/Management Committee of AITA in direct contravention of the Sports Code. It was also contended that the Sports Code was binding upon AITA, and it was the duty of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to ensure its implementation in both letter and spirit.
The petition clarified that the Constitution of the AITA, effective since August 31, 2000, remained unamended following the implementation of the Sports Code. This situation allowed the AITA to form a sub-committee known as the “Management Committee,” yet the Constitution did not delineate its powers and functions, delegating authority to the Executive Committee instead. Consequently, the AITA operated with two executive bodies: the Executive Committee and the Management Committee, which included the AITA President and four members from the Vice Presidents and Executive Committee.
Significantly, the Constitution failed to include any representation of eminent sportspersons in the Central Council or General Assembly, contravening the Sports Code's requirement for a minimum of 25% representation. Although the Constitution allowed for the appointment of two additional Executive Committee members, it did not comply with the Sports Code, enabling the Executive Committee to selectively choose players without genuine adherence to the Code’s mandates.
The AITA conducted elections on October 16, 2012, violating the Sports Code and electing a President who exceeded the specified tenure limits. The high court, in its judgment on May 9, 2014, confirmed that the Sports Code was binding on all National Sports Federations (NSFs). Following this ruling, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (Ministry) directed the AITA multiple times, starting October 22, 2014, to ensure the President's resignation and conduct new elections, but the AITA ignored these directives. Consequently, the Ministry withheld funds from the AITA until compliance was achieved. In March 2020, the Ministry ordered the removal of the “Life President” position from the Constitution.
Subsequently, on June 27, 2020, the AITA amended its Constitution, significantly changing the provisions related to the Management Committee, allowing three nominees who need not be members of the Executive Committee, thereby eliminating mandatory oversight by the Executive Committee.
The AITA faced criticism for not adhering to the Sports Code, as interpreted by the court’s judgment dated August 16, 2022. The high court noted that the amended Constitution lacked provisions for athlete representation in key decision-making bodies. Despite attempts to include two nominated members, this effort did not meet the Sports Code's requirement for election by peers.
In 2020, fresh elections were held, but the Ministry only conditionally approved the results, disqualifying one Vice President and imposing an age limit on the Secretary-General. Nevertheless, the AITA continued to display disqualified individuals as part of its Executive Committee, defying both the Ministry’s orders and the Sports Code.
The petition stated that subsequent amendments to the AITA Constitution failed to rectify these violations, and in 2023, the court reaffirmed its previous stance, instructing compliance with the Sports Code. However, the AITA remained non-compliant, resulting in withheld financial support from the government. Even in September 2024, the Ministry recognized ongoing non-compliance as the AITA attempted to conduct another Annual General Meeting and elections without adhering to the procedures established by the Sports Code. Overall, the Constitution of AITA exhibited significant deficiencies regarding mandatory provisions of the Sports Code, prompting the Petitioner to file the Petition to address these issues.
Case Title: Somdev Kishore Devvarman v Union Of India
Please Login or Register
