CHENNAI: In a major setback to Boxing Federation of India president Ajay Singh, the Himachal Pradesh High Court also stayed the letter issued by him on March 7. The Himachal Pradesh Boxing Association was forced to approach the court after one of its nominations for the Electoral College – that of former sports minister Anurag Thakur – was deleted based on the March 7 letter issued by the president three days after the announcement of the election dates.
The HPBA had sent two names to the BFI to be included in the Electoral College (EC) – its president Rajesh Bhandari and Thakur. After the HP court order, the HPBA has written to the returning officer to include Thakur’s name. The last date of withdrawal of nomination is on Friday (5pm). The HP court did not want to interfere with the elections but has directed the BFI to include Thakur’s name and redraw the nomination of candidates list.
It needs to be seen what the RO does next. After two court orders, the Thakur faction has suddenly started to get more active and has claimed that they have the backing of around 25 state units.
The HP HC order comes a day after the Delhi High Court set aside the March 7 letter because “this Court (Delhi HC) is of the view that a prima facie case is established by the petitioner in its favour. Prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner, if the petitioner is not allowed to participate in the election process”. In this case, Delhi Amateur Boxing Association (DABA) was the petitioner and two members were not allowed by the RO to be part of the Electoral College because of the March 7 letter. The DABA also has written to the RO to include their two names – Rohit Jain and Neeraj K Bhatt.
Interestingly, the Electoral College prepared by the president without the name of Thakur was accepted by RO RK Gauba. As highlighted by this newspaper the provision incorporated in the letter was not in line with the Model Election Guidelines (MEG) of the National Sports Development Code of India (2011) as well as the rules and regulations of the BFI. Despite HPBA pointing it out to the RO, no changes took place in the Electoral College and the nomination process ended with those names on it. These points were raised during the hearing on Wednesday in Delhi.
What seemed interesting are the views of the Union of India (sports ministry). As reported by this daily, the March 7 letter apparently was supported by an RTI which had noted that elected members should be nominated by the state units of electoral rolls. The RTI had produced an ‘internal’ noting of the sports ministry that said the member who should be representing the state unit needs to be an elected one. However, during the Delhi HC hearing, the counsel representing the Union of India and the sports ministry said “The office noting, which is on record, cannot be considered to be a final view of respondent no. 2, since there is no official intimation with respect to the said noting in question”.
In the same order, the standing counsel pointed out to RO’s point No 4 in his order dated 13th March 2025, that the “aforesaid findings of the learned Returning Officer are beyond the Model Code of Conduct”.
In the HP HC order, the single judge Ajay Mohan Goel also said that there is no rider mentioned in the rules and regulations of the BFI on who the state unit can nominate. The order notes that “one finds that the Electoral College is to inter alia consist of two voters who are to be nominated by each member association and the nomination or representation of each member association is to be by two member representatives authorised by the President or General Secretary/ Secretary of the association. There is no rider mentioned in the Rules and Regulations that only those persons can be nominated as members by a member association, who are duly elected members during the election AGM duly notified to BFI of the State Unites etc. as has been ordained by respondent No.2 vide impugned communication dated 07.03.2025”.
The Deputy Solicitor General of India, Balram Sharma, representing Union of India said that after the term of the office bearers expired on February 2 the president has no authority to bring out such an order. “Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that once the term of the office bearers has expired on 02.02.2025, respondent No. 2 has no authority in law to issue any Notice, as has been issued by him which stands impugned, in his capacity of President of respondent No. 3 and otherwise also, as the issuance of Notice is outside the powers conferred upon the President, the Notice is bad.”
Though the orders have been passed, as of late on Thursday there has been no update.