High Court ruling on terms of office-bearers has wide ramifications

Special Correspondent

Players and coaches remain almost unrepresented in sports bodies

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Union Government guidelines on tenure of office-bearers of the National Sports Federations (NSFs) are maintainable and enforceable.

Disposing of a petition filed by Narinder Batra of the Jammu and Kashmir Hockey Association, Justice Geeta Mittal of the Delhi High Court directed the Union Government to “examine all complaints made by the petitioner” with regard to the breach of government guidelines as well as the terms for grant of financial and other assistance to the Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) and the utilisation of the funds.

“Undoubtedly, the action as per the guidelines has to follow such investigation,” the court said.

Allegations

Mr. Batra had filed the writ petition in May 2005, alleging mismanagement and violation of the terms of the Government guidelines by the IHF.

He also made serious allegations of financial irregularities by the IHF President, K.P.S. Gill, and former Secretary, K. Jothikumaran. (The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) ad hoc committee runs men’s hockey in the country at present.)

The court judgement has ramifications beyond the IHF. For the first time, clarity has been brought into the vexed “guidelines” issue and the court has come down heavily on the Government for not implementing the provisions in the guidelines. The one on tenure of office-bearers stipulates that an office-bearer of a federation can have two terms of four years each at a stretch, the second one on a two-thirds majority.

The IOA took the lead sometime in the mid-1980s to flout the guidelines by amending its constitution and almost all NSFs followed suit.

The IHF told the court that it had amended its constitution in February 2004 to allow more than two terms on a simple majority vote.

The Government affidavit stated that the guideline regarding tenure was not being insisted upon in the “interest of sportsperson.”

“What is the interest of sportsperson is neither detailed nor spelt out…,” Justice Mittal noted.

Two amendments

“It is an admitted position that the guidelines were framed and circulated in 1975, amended in 1997 and 2001 with the approval of the Ministry of Finance… State revenue was involved.

“It was incumbent on all those working the guidelines to ensure that the guidelines were strictly complied with. Certainly there cannot be dispensation of State largesse which includes large amounts of funding and other technical assistance without compliance of the guidelines laid down for such dispensation,” the court said.

Justice Mittal said the Government had permitted complete autonomy to the NSFs and there was arbitrariness in their functioning.

Players and coaches remained almost unrepresented in Indian sports bodies in complete contrast to the situation in international federations which had celebrated sportspersons in important positions.

While noting that Indian hockey continued to languish at the bottom, Justice Mittal made these observations on its administration: “The facts placed by the respondents and the curtain attempted to be drawn over what Indian hockey was before this court is a chilling certification of the negative performance or failure of a board.”
Argument dismissed

The court dismissed the oft-repeated argument that any attempt to regulate would be a violation of the Olympic Charter.

“Firstly, I see no interference by the stipulation of the tenure condition as a condition for grant of recognition and assistance by the Government. Secondly, the same does not enable the Government to have any say of any kind in the affairs of running of the sports body,” Justice Mittal said.

The court also noted that even the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had restrictions on the terms of its office-bearers.