Sports Governance and National Sports Code: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Archery Association Elections

The case of Maharashtra Archery Association vs. Rahul Mehra & Others revolves around governance issues in the Archery Association of India (AAI) and its compliance with the National Sports Code. The dispute stemmed from allegations of mismanagement, lack of transparency, and non-adherence to prescribed sports regulations, leading to judicial intervention.

The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the Administrator, appointed by the High Court, had the authority to unilaterally amend the AAI Constitution and whether the elections conducted based on these amendments were valid. The judgment provided critical clarity on sports governance and the limits of court-appointed administration in sports federations.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Rahul Mehra before the Delhi High Court, raising concerns about the lack of transparency in the functioning of the AAI. The High Court, in response, appointed Mr. S.Y. Quraishi, former Chief Election Commissioner of India, as the Administrator to oversee AAI’s governance and ensure compliance with the National Sports Code.

The High Court directed the Administrator to amend the AAI Constitution in accordance with the National Sports Code and conduct fresh elections. However, the appellants, including Maharashtra Archery Association and Kerala State Archery Association, challenged the extent of the Administrator’s powers, arguing that he exceeded his mandate by making amendments beyond those explicitly permitted by the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Considered

• Whether the Administrator had the authority to amend the AAI Constitution beyond what was approved by the Supreme Court.
• Whether the elections conducted under the Administrator’s amended Constitution were valid.
• Whether sports federations must strictly comply with the National Sports Code.
• Whether the Supreme Court’s earlier order approving certain amendments was misinterpreted.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Maharashtra Archery Association & Others)

• The Administrator unilaterally amended the AAI Constitution beyond the Supreme Court’s approved modifications.
• The amendments were made without consulting stakeholders and members of the Association.
• The elections conducted under the amended Constitution were invalid, as they disenfranchised existing members.
• Any changes beyond what was approved by the Supreme Court required a formal amendment process and stakeholder consultation.

Arguments by the Respondent (Rahul Mehra & Others)

• The amendments made by the Administrator were essential to align AAI’s Constitution with the National Sports Code.
• The Supreme Court’s earlier order implicitly allowed for additional amendments to ensure full compliance with sports regulations.
• The elections were conducted in a fair and transparent manner.
• The petitioners were attempting to delay reforms and retain control over a non-compliant sports federation.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court held that the Administrator had exceeded his authority by making amendments beyond those approved by the Court. The Court emphasized:

“The Administrator was required to conduct elections strictly in accordance with the four amendments approved by this Court on 4th December 2017. Any additional amendments required proper stakeholder consultation and due process.”

The Court further ruled:

“The right to form an association includes the right to its continuity. Any unilateral alteration of the Association’s composition by an external authority amounts to a violation of this right.”

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

• The amendments made by the Administrator beyond the Supreme Court’s approved changes were null and void.
• The elections conducted based on these amendments were also invalid.
• The governance of the AAI must return to the position as it stood on 4th December 2017, after incorporating only the approved amendments.
• The newly elected body must initiate a formal process to bring AAI’s Constitution in full compliance with the National Sports Code.
• All financial and policy decisions made by the Administrator under the amended Constitution were deemed invalid.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and declared all actions taken by the Administrator beyond the scope of the Court’s earlier order as null and void. The elections held under the unauthorized amendments were set aside, and fresh elections were ordered under the properly approved Constitution.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reaffirms that court-appointed administrators in sports federations cannot unilaterally alter governance structures beyond their specific mandate. It also underscores the importance of compliance with the National Sports Code while ensuring procedural fairness in implementing reforms.

The decision serves as a precedent for future sports governance disputes, ensuring that reforms are carried out through proper legal and procedural channels.

Petitioner Name: Maharashtra Archery Association.
Respondent Name: Rahul Mehra & Others.
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 01-05-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Maharashtra Archery vs Rahul Mehra & Others Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-05-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Election and Political Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category