THE DELHI HIGH COURT has ruled that the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) does not have the authority to intervene in or replace the governing bodies of independent sports entities, striking down its decision to appoint an ad hoc committee to run Ski and Snowboard India.
In a significant judgment that clarifies the limits of the IOA’s jurisdiction, a division bench upheld an earlier single-judge ruling that had set aside the IOA’s October 13, 2023 order to constitute a provisional committee for the federation.
The court held that the IOA lacked the “jurisdiction or authority or power” to supersede the executive committee of Ski and Snowboard India, which operates as an autonomous society under Karnataka law. The ruling emphasised that sports bodies not formally recognised as national federations fall outside the IOA’s direct administrative control, reinforcing their legal independence.
A key issue in the case was the IOA’s reliance on Article 17.5 of its internal rules, which it argued permitted the creation of provisional committees in affiliated entities. The court rejected this interpretation, describing it as “highly misconceived,” and clarified that the provision applies only to internal commissions and committees within the IOA itself—not to external or independent organisations. “The Commissions and Committees referred to… are necessarily internal to the Association,” the court observed, drawing a clear boundary around the IOA’s rule-making authority.
The judgment also hinged on the legal status of Ski and Snowboard India within the Indian sports framework. Both the court and the Ministry of Sports confirmed that the body is not recognised as a national sports federation under either the 2011 Sports Code or the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. As a result, the provisions of the 2025 Act, aimed at ensuring transparency and governance standards in recognised sports bodies, do not apply to the federation.
This finding also nullified the IOA’s argument that elections could not be conducted until the federation aligned its statutes with the new law.
The ruling has broader implications for sports governance in India, particularly in defining the limits of oversight by apex bodies such as the IOA. The court noted that while recent legislation seeks to promote transparency and accountability in sports administration, its applicability is contingent on formal recognition within the national framework.
By reaffirming the autonomy of entities registered as civil societies, the judgment establishes that the IOA cannot act as a supervisory authority over organisations outside the recognised system without explicit statutory backing. The decision is expected to serve as a key precedent in future disputes involving governance, jurisdiction and autonomy within India’s evolving sports ecosystem.
