SC order on AAI clear message to court-appointed administrators to avoid overreach

The Supreme Court order on Archery Association of India was a clear message to all court-appointed administrators of sports bodies in the country—stick to the brief and do not overreach. In its order dated May 1, the apex court not only declared the elections held under the supervision of the High Court-appointed administrator and former chief election commissioner S.Y. Quraishi null and void but also found that he had exceeded his brief. It further made it clear that, at present, the new constitution of the Archery Association of India must conform with the 2011 National Sports Development Code (NSDC).

In their order, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi said, "Be it noted that, admittedly, the Constitution filed by the Administrator contained several other amendments than the permitted or approved amendments in terms of the order of this Court dated 4th December, 2017."

Affairs of football, kabaddi, BCCI and some of the state associations—Jammu & Kashmir and Hyderabad—are being overseen by various court-appointed administrators at present, while Mumbai and Delhi state cricket associations were under such administrators until recently.

Describing the mandate given to the administrator as "limited" in the AAI case, they clarified that "we may hasten to accept the plea that the steps taken by the Administrator were under a mistaken belief that he had the authority to proceed in the manner that he did and including to amend the Constitution beyond the four amendments referred to in the order dated 4th December, 2017. It is not a case of defiance or disobedience of the Court’s order as such."

National Sports Federations and Indian Olympic Association were jubilant about the ruling. While stating that a wrong had been duly corrected, Advocate Sushil Salwan, appearing for Maharashtra Archery Association—an appellant in the case—said, "The Supreme Court has saved the majesty of court from being tarnished and trampled. Despite clear directions, the administrator took law in his own hands, by getting misled by people having interest adverse to fair play and sports. It’s was a very unsporting event, fortunately corrected by the hon’ble court or else, in future, people would have taken the administrator’s action as a precedent to defy court’s directions and orders."

However, Salwan, who has dealt with numerous sports-related cases felt that the sports federations need to be more transparent and accountable. "All associations need to put their house in order or else, the innings will be very rough. India needs clean sport. We cannot play games with the generations to come. There are issues with functioning of NSFs and these would be an issue,” he said.

The Lodha Committee recommendations and the BCCI issue, too, came up. Many former Olympians had filed an interim application in the Supreme Court for Lodha Committee recommendations to be applied to all NSFs and IOA. The court has clubbed this matter with the ongoing BCCI case.

The apex court clearly said that since most NSFs (52)—barring BCCI—were compliant with the NSDC, for the time being, even the AAI constitution had to be in line with the sports code. However, the court made it clear that the issue shall remain open.

Quraishi and sports activist lawyer Rahul Mehra went in with the view that the new AAI constitution should incorporate the Lodha Committee recommendations as they were part of the Supreme Court order. "We make it clear that the High Court may also consider the stand taken by the appellant(s) and Union of India that the decision of this Court in Board of Control for Cricket (supra)10 will be of no avail to the present case, because the National Sports Code takes within its fold fifty two disciplines of sports and Cricket is not one of the scheduled sports. In other words, the dispensation to be followed must be in conformity with the National Sports Code in so far as AAI is concerned. We keep this issue open to be considered at the appropriate stage."

Court-appointed administrators of sports federations have to walk a fine line. Quraishi is not the first one to have exceeded his brief. In the recent past, High Court-appointed administrators for Mumbai Cricket Association had made such a chaos that even Mumbai High Court had refused to extend their term. The Vinod Rai-led Committee of Administrators, which is running Indian cricket, has been criticised for certain calls they took and whether that came in their brief. In fact, the CoA was split, with one of its members, Diana Edulji, saying that their main responsibility, as per the court order, of holding elections had not been fulfilled.

For Quraishi, a former sports secretary, this is a learning experience as well. One that will come in handy while tackling another federation's constitution—that of the All India Football Federation. He has been appointed by the court to supervise and formulate the AIFF's new constitution.