Delhi HC Restores Mandate Of Ad-Hoc Committee Appointed By IOA For Conduct Of Affairs Of Wrestling Federation Of India
|The Delhi High Court has restored the mandate of ad-hoc committee appointed by Indian Olympic Association (IOA) for the conduct of affairs of Wrestling Federation of India (WFI).
Indian wrestler Bajrang Punia and other wrestlers preferred an application in the backdrop of the grievances raised in the writ petition as regards the conduct of affairs of WFI and the primary grievance was the alleged illegal action of WFI in seeking to conduct selection trials for Senior Asian Wrestling Championship 2024 and Asian Olympic Games Qualifier Wrestling Tournament notified through a circular.
A Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta directed, “Since this Court has concluded that the dissolution of the ad-hoc committee was unwarranted, it restores the mandate of the ad-hoc committee appointed by the IOA vide order dated 27.12.2023. However, it shall be open to IOA to reconstitute the ad-hoc committee so as to ensure that the same is a multi-member body comprising of eminent sportsperson/s and/or experts who are well-versed in dealing with the International Federations, so as to allay any concerns that the UWW might have as regards the steps taken qua the WFI.”
The Bench said that since the Paris Olympic Games 2024 is already over, there is no reason why the Ministry/Centre should feel constrained in taking/implementing requisite decision/s as to whether the suspension qua WFI is required to continue or not and/or whether there needs to be an ad-hoc committee for managing the affairs of WFI.
Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra represented the petitioners while Senior Advocates Jayant Mehta and Dayan Krishnan represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
It was alleged in the writ petition that WFI was not compliant with the National Sports Development Code, 2011. It was averred that the onus of ensuring that the WFI along with its affiliated members are fully compliant with the said Code lies solely on the shoulders of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS). It was further averred that although the MYAS having conferred with the responsibility of ensuring good governance in WFI and adherence to the Code, suspended WFI vide order and simultaneously requested the IOA to constitute an ad-hoc committee to manage and control the affairs of WFI, in actual fact, the said committee failed to take appropriate steps to assume full control of WFI and to issue directions to ensure that WFI and its affiliated members units fall in line and comply with the mandatory requirements of the Code.
In the aftermath of the order, an office order was issued by IOA whereby the committee appointed to manage affairs of WFI was dissolved with immediate effect. Hence, the application was filed before the High Court. The application proceeded on the apprehension that upon the dissolution of the ad-hoc committee, the MYAS would proceed to revoke the suspension of WFI. Hence, a prayer was made seeking that MYAS be interdicted from revoking the said suspension during the pendency of the writ petition. The remaining prayers sought constitution of a “One-Man-Committee” to take over the management, control and administration of WFI.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “As such, insistence on compliance with the law of the land (which includes NSDCI, 2011) cannot be construed as “governmental interference” or “third party interference” so as to invite any adverse action from the international body. … every international federation which is managing and administrating an Olympic discipline has a mandatory pre-requisite eligibility criteria for affiliation, that the concerned national federation has to be a duly affiliated member of the concerned National Olympic Committee (NOC) i.e. Indian Olympics Association (IOA) in case of India.”
The Court observed that the adherence to the “law of land” (which includes NSDCI, 2011 and other provisions of Indian law) is mandated on account of the Constitution of the National Olympic Committee (IOA) itself and also, Article 26.1.5 of the Constitution of IOA recognizes that an NSF may have to suffer loss of recognition due to non-adherence with the “international or national sports code”.
“… any apprehension of action/reprisal by the international body, need not deter the MYAS from enforcing its order dated 24.12.2023, if so warranted (unless the said order dated 24.12.2023 is itself recalled or reviewed). … It is also pertinent to note that Article 6.1 of the Constitution of UWW itself makes it mandatory that the concerned NSF must be recognized by the National Olympic Committee (IOA). As noticed, the IOA Constitution itself insists on rigorous adherence to the Sports Code and the law of land”, it added.
The Court further clarified that the ad-hoc committee shall continue to act as such, only till such time as the order issued by MYAS is in force and it shall be open to the Ministry to withdraw/review the said order, if circumstances so warrant. It said that this order shall not be construed as imposing any limitations or constraints in this regard.
“Further, at the present stage, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner to the effect that any retired judge of this Court or the Supreme Court be appointed as the administrator. It is deemed apposite to have a multi-member ad-hoc committee (as mentioned aforesaid) to manage and control the affairs of the respondent no. 2”, it also said.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the application.
Cause Title- Bajrang Punia and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6164)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Sr. Adv. Rahul Mehra, Advocates Siddharth Nayak, Chaitanya Gosain, and Raghav Khanna.
Respondents: Sr. Advs Jayant Mehta, Dayan Krishnan, CGSC Anil Soni, Advocates Devvrat Yadav, Diva Saigal, Hemant Phalpher, Sukrit Seth, Auritro Mukherjee, Sagar Chaurasia, and Vikas Singh.