Delhi High Court: In a writ petition challenging the elections of the All India Tennis Association (AITA) on the ground of alleged non-compliance with the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (Sports Code) and prior judicial directions, a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J., dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, holding that the petitioner’s disqualification was in accordance with the applicable rules and did not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality.
Taking note of the coming into force of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (2025 Act) and the National Sports Governance (National Sports Bodies) Rules, 2026 (2026 Rules), the Court observed that the statutory regime now governs the field and renders the issues raised with respect to the 2011 Sports Code academic. The Court further observed that AITA’s existing Executive Committee is not in conformity with the statutory mandate and that a divided body cannot be permitted to undertake amendments to the bye-laws or conduct elections and directed that fresh elections be conducted in accordance with the 2025 Act and the 2026 Rules.
Also Read: Indian Olympic Association cannot control functioning of an independent sports body: Delhi HC
Background
The present writ petition was filed challenging the elections of Respondent 2 AITA, which were scheduled to be held on 28 September 2024, inter alia, on the ground of alleged violations of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 and the judgment in Rahul Mehra v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2438.
The matter came up for consideration on 24 September 2024, when this Court directed that the elections to AITA shall remain subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. It was further directed that the result of the election be placed in a sealed cover by the Election Officer and shall not be published.
During the pendency of the petition, the Central Government, vide Notification dated 31 December 2025, brought into force various provisions of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, including Sections 1 to 3, parts of Sections 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 30, 31 and Sections 33 to 38. Subsequently, the National Sports Board (Search-cum-Selection Committee) Rules, 2026 were notified on 8 January 2026, followed by the notification of the National Sports Governance (National Sports Bodies) Rules, 2026 on 12 January 2026.
In view of the aforesaid subsequent legislative developments, this Court deemed it appropriate to examine the purport and intent of the newly enacted statutory regime governing National Sports Federations such as AITA, and proceeded to consider the relevant provisions of the Sports Act, 2025 and the Sports Governance Rules, 2026, including Section 4(2) of the Act, which prescribes the qualifications for contesting elections or seeking nomination to the Executive Committee of National Sports Bodies.
Analysis
Upon perusal of the provisions of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 and the National Sports Governance (National Sports Bodies) Rules, 2026, this Court observed that Section 4(2) mandates compliance with International Charters, statutes and bye-laws, prescribes age limits and tenure restrictions with cooling-off periods, and governs eligibility for contesting elections or seeking nomination to the Executive Committee. It was further noted that the term of the Executive Committee is four years, its composition cannot exceed 15 members, and there has to be mandatory representation of sportspersons of outstanding merit with adequate gender representation. The Court also noted that all National Sports Bodies are required to amend their bye-laws within six months from 12 January 2026 and conduct elections in accordance with the new statutory regime.
Applying the aforesaid, this Court found that the existing Executive Committee of the AITA, having 25 members, is not in conformity with the statutory mandate. It was further observed that the tenure of the earlier Executive Committee (2020—2024) has already expired and its continuation, even by virtue of interim orders, does not confer legitimacy. This Court held that, in view of the subsequent enactment of 2025 Act, the issue raised with regard to non-compliance of the Sports Code, has become academic.
This Court also took note of the stand of the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports permitting a transitional arrangement and recommending declaration of the 2024 election results. However, this Court expressed serious concern over the apparent factionalism within AITA, where multiple office-bearers have claimed to represent the body and have filed pleadings before this Court. It was observed that such a divided Executive Committee cannot be permitted to carry out amendments to the bye-laws or conduct elections in terms of the new statutory regime.
In view of the above, this Court confined itself to ensuring compliance with the new legal framework and held that fresh elections are required to be conducted in accordance with the 2025 Act and the 2026 Rules. As an interim measure, this Court permitted declaration of the results of the 2024 elections only for the limited purpose of enabling the newly elected body to manage the day-to-day affairs of AITA. Further, this Court deemed it appropriate to appoint an independent Administrator to oversee the functioning of AITA, supervise the process of amendment of its Constitution and bye-laws, and ensure that fresh elections are conducted in accordance with law.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s disqualification was in accordance with the rules, found no arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the respondents, and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
Further, the Court directed that the results of the AITA elections held on 28 September 2024 be declared, and the elected Executive Committee shall function as an interim body to manage the day-to-day affairs till fresh elections are conducted in accordance with the amended bye-laws. The erstwhile Committee was directed to hand over charge forthwith.
The Court appointed Justice (Retd.) Ms Gita Mittal as Administrator to oversee the functioning of AITA, carry out amendments to its constitution/bye-laws in terms of the 2025 Act and the 2026 Rules, prepare the electoral roll/college, and conduct elections within the stipulated time. The Administrator shall also supervise the day-to-day affairs of AITA and oversee its financial operations, including bank accounts and expenditures.
It was further directed that the interim body shall extend full cooperation to the Administrator and shall not make any new financial commitments without prior approval. The Administrator was held entitled to fees, incidental expenses, and to engage necessary personnel, the costs of which shall be borne by AITA, which shall also provide requisite office space and facilities.
Also Read: Delhi HC upholds Indian Pickleball Association’s NSF recognition
[Anil Dhupar v. Chintan N. Parikh, CONT.CAS(C) 1378 of 2025, decided on 27-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Varun Dewan and Himanshu Chaturvedi, Advocates
For the Respondent: Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, GP, Akash Mishra and Arunav Padhi, Advocates