Some points in amended IOA constitution diluted: Rahul Mehra
Though most of the 13 points raised by him in the Delhi High Court were incorporated in the constitution, there were four or five points that could have been included.
Published: 05th November 2022 09:04 AM | Last Updated: 05th November 2022 09:04 AM | A+A A-
CHENNAI: Senior advocate Rahul Mehra, also the petitioner, is not amused by some of the provisions of the amended IOA Constitution. Though most of the 13 points raised by him in the Delhi High Court were incorporated in the constitution, there were four or five points that could have been included.
“No voting rights to state units, executive council members to be considered as office-bearers and hence tenure and term rule will be applicable to them, these are very big steps,” he said. “However, there are at least a few points I thought where the provisions have been diluted.
“What is good for the parent body should be good across the board,” he said. “Why should only state units follow IOA’s constitution and why not the National Sports Federations, who are the decision-making bodies. They have the votes and the IOA constitution should be applicable right to the state sports federations. Earlier, it was argued that since sports is a state subject, state units cannot be governed by the IOA constitution. But now it can. Even NSFs should follow the IOA constitution, but the amended constitution says they should be in consonance with the international federations. I will raise this objection in court.”
Another point he raised is that he would approach the SC to prevent the IOA general assembly from amending the constitution with two-third majority. “I will request the court not to allow IOA to amend the constitution in the next 12 years or three terms. The India cricket body (BCCI) constitution was not allowed to be altered for 10 years. Here too IOA should not without the permission of the court, otherwise, they will change the constitution after taking office.” He also pointed out that the Delhi High Court had said that the IOA got a lot of opportunities too but they did nothing.
Mehra also asked what have players done to not get enough representation in the general assembly. “They have 25 per cent representation in EC, but in general assembly, they just have eight members with voting rights. If the eligible NSFs are counted, there might be some 80 votes, so what was preventing the drafting committee from not raising the number to 20 at least? They could have done that. If they had said that IOC had objections, then don’t have them. Why just have 10 members with voting rights? We must promote sportspersons.”
Mehra also felt that IOA should follow the sports code. According to the draft constitution, “No provisions of national sports code shall be applicable to the IOA if they are in contradiction with the Olympic Charter and this newly adopted Constitution.” Mehra said that they must follow the sports code. “The IOC doesn’t say that they should not follow it. The earlier IOA constitution says it ‘shall be governed in accordance with the IOA Constitution, the Olympic Charter and the law of the land’. It was an IOC-approved constitution then, why should that not be the case this time too.”
He also felt that all the 13 points he had suggested to the Delhi HC to be incorporated should have been part of the constitution.