CHENNAI: SPORTS elections in the country are turning out to be big controversies. More so in recent times, especially after the Table Tennis Federation of India (2021-22), the All India Football Federation, the Indian Olympic Association’s court battles and subsequent elections. The final outcome was a landmark judgment in the case between Rahul Mehra vs Union of India and others: the Delhi High Court order of 16.08.2022 of Najmi Waziri and Manmohan. The National Sports Development Code of India 2011 was supposed to be read along with the 16.08.2022 HC order. Interestingly, Anurag Thakur was the sports minister at that time.
Since then, almost all elections (where disputes arose) landed up in court over violation of the 13 points that were supposed to be followed by the IOA and its National Sports Federations (through various court orders). The sports ministry’s affidavits and replies to the court made things more complicated. There were stays or results withheld by Delhi High Court on elections of federations like tennis, judo, volleyball and rowing over violations of sports code and notably those points mentioned in the 16.08.2022 order.
The Boxing Federation of India (BFI) election too seems to be heading towards that direction. Unless both parties come to a compromise, like in the case of All India Chess Federation (AICF) last year. The script seems too familiar. Two factions: the president on one side, the secretary on another, suddenly invoked various sections of the NSDF of India 2011. BFI president Ajay Singh is on one side, the secretary general Hemanta Kalita and treasurer Digvijay Singh are on the other side. There is another faction seemingly with them, the Himachal Pradesh Boxing Association that sent the name of Thakur to the BFI for Electoral College.
Two influential figures in the current political landscape are fighting over presidentship of a sports federation. Even in the last BFI election in 2021, a top BJP leader from Maharashtra was contesting against Singh (who is known to be close to the ruling party). This time the fight is against a former sports minister.
The RO of the BFI elections, former Delhi High Court judge RK Gauba, has accepted the Electoral College signed by Singh after a hearing on the Delhi Amateur Boxing Association issue late on Thursday. Gauba ruled against the DABA’s nominations. He, however, did not mention Thakur in the order. There is one reference (Point 12) to an audience with the secretary and the treasurer and vice president (north) but the subject was not disclosed. There were detailed hearings on 12.02.2025 and 13.02.2025 for two hours each “in which all concerned participated”.
The name of Thakur was scrapped by BFI president because of a letter he issued three days (on March 7) after the election notice was issued (on March 4). The provision the BFI president incorporated in the letter that led to Thakur’s exclusion was: “It is hereby clarified that only bonafide and duly elected members during the election AGM (duly notified to BFI) of the State Units affiliated with the Boxing Federation of India (BFI) shall be authorised to represent their respective States/Union Territories.”
It is interesting to note the provision in the model election guidelines of the National Sports Development Code of India 2011 (NSDCI) – Annexure XXXVII (page 167). It says: “each Permanent Member State/Union Territory shall be represented by two members authorised by the President or Secretary General/Secretary of the affiliated Permanent Member State/Union Territory; however, in case President/Secretary General / Secretary nominates different person(s), the person(s) authorised by the President shall be deemed to be the duly authorised person(s). Irrespective of the date.” This has been reproduced in the BFI constitution. There is no mention of ‘elected’ member.
This becomes even more curious if a letter doing the rounds in the BFI circles is to be believed. It cited a sports ministry directive of 2020 (before Delhi HC order of 16.08.2022) that said that these members have to be elected ones. This was in the case of AICF and the sports ministry had noted that “only such persons who are the elected members of the executive body of the State / UT Association can only be authorised by the President of such Association to represent in the meetings of the NSFs including casting of vote in the elections of the NSFs.”
It will be interesting to see how the court sees this. Because all recent court orders passed by the Delhi HC had taken into consideration the 16.08.2022 order. The HC also stated that whatever is good for IOA is good for NSFs. One such point is the restrictive clause: “(vii) There cannot be any restrictive, undemocratic clause, including as to who can contest for any position.”
This is just one sticky point. Another point is that the BFI is in violation of the sports code and its own constitution when it comes to athletes’ commission. The BFI constitution says under Executive Council: “… “(d) 4 Members from Athletes Commission, (1 male & 1 female) boxer each elected by the participating boxers during the Elite National Championships and (1 male & 1 female) exboxer as elected by ex-boxers / awardees, will be included.” But going by its website there is none. Surprisingly, when it comes to women representation/participation in sports administration, the BFI approved electoral roll has just one name. Contrast this with IOA’s constitution that mandates one male and one female representative from NSFs as part of their electoral college.
The silence of the sports ministry is baffling too. Though he may or may not have the numbers (he needs 2/3 majority to retain his position), Singh’s Electoral College move seems to have given him the edge. It needs to be seen how Thakur responds.