Delhi High Court: In the instant case the Indian Olympic Association (i.e. IOA) approached the Court for giving appropriate directions that the National Sports Code (i.e. the Code) issued by the respondent Union Government (i.e. U.O.I.) is beyond its executive power as Parliament does not possess legislative power to enact a law in that regard. Hence, its provisions are in violation of IOAs rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and 21 of the Constitution. The Court while rejecting the contention reiterated that the matters relating to international sports and regulation of National Sports Federations (i.e. NSFs), and IOA, falls within Entry 97 of the First List to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Hence, the Central Government can insist upon adherence to these provisions, without the aid of any legislation. It was also held that the Code does not violate the freedom under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, neither are its provisions arbitrary. The tenure restrictions impugned in this case can and are insisted upon as a part of the public interest in efficient and fair administration of such NSFs. In the present case, the issue was whether the Code framed by the U.O.I. violates the right of IOA and NSFs under Article 19(1)(c). The Act being framed to act as a guideline for their functioning, in admissibility of concessions and state privileges, such as customs duty waivers, access to state owned property, stadia, grants for training, coaching, travel expenditure and foreign travel clearances, etc. to the associations, which can claim such privileges. The standards questioned in this case were the tenure restrictions of office bearers of such associations. Rejecting the petitioners contention, the Court held that the impugned stipulations in the Code, spelling out tenure restrictions, for various officer bearers, and their concurrent operation, do not violate the petitioners rights under Article 19(1)(c). The State or social concern with regard to regulating sports can be achieved through framing certain definitive policies to be followed by the NSFs and the IOA to ensure its representative character which is aimed at the larger common good in the sports world and to avoid development of cliques or cabals in sporting federations. The U.O.I. aims that such tenure restrictions ensure that the decision making are by bodies in which such cabals in sporting federations operate. So long as the U.O.I. has the authority to recognize the national sporting federations and the IOA, even for the purpose of funding and declaring which of them is entitled to use the national emblem or use the term “India” the insistence on such regulations, is legitimate. Hence, till appropriate legislation is framed by Parliament, this regulation (subject to any subsequent amendments) should bind the parties and all NSFs as a condition for recognition, aid and crucially, for the use of the term “India” by any team in International Olympic sporting event.[Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 2310/2012, decided on 9 May, 2014]
Posted on: Wed, 14 May 2014 12:26:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015