The High Court of Delhi has dismissed an application filed by the Delhi Amateur Boxing Association (DABA) which sought the immediate removal of Ajay Singh from his position as the President of the Boxing Federation of India (BFI). Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the matter, rejected the plea, ruling that the petitioner could not use an interim application to raise fresh causes of action that fell outside the scope of the original writ petition filed in August 2026.

The petitioner had moved the court for an urgent direction to cease the professional functioning of the BFI leadership and to compel the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) to appoint an independent ad-hoc body. This committee was intended to take over the administration, financial management, and day-to-day operations of the national sports federation for the duration of the ongoing legal challenge. However, the court found the move procedurally flawed, emphasizing that the legal arguments presented in the current application were not part of the initial lawsuit filed on August 23, 2026.

In his order, Justice Banerjee noted that the petitioner was attempting to bypass standard litigation procedures by introducing new grievances under the guise of an interim application. The court highlighted that while some constitutional amendments within the BFI had previously been made subject to the outcome of the main petition, the current request attempted to litigate entirely new events that the petitioner had not properly challenged in an independent proceeding.

“The petitioner herein cannot be permitted to seek reliefs beyond the scope of the main writ petition, particularly, since the petitioner herein is seeking to assail/ assert/ litigate the subsequent events/ fresh causes of actions, after filing of captioned writ petition,” the court observed.

Procedural Constraints on Sports Litigation

The ruling reinforces the principle that judicial intervention in the internal administration of sports bodies must strictly adhere to the pleadings established in the main cause of action. The court underscored that the petitioner had ample opportunity to challenge subsequent organizational developments through appropriate, independent legal channels rather than filing supplemental applications in a pending case.

Furthermore, the High Court pointed out that an earlier attempt by the DABA to secure similar interim relief—specifically aimed at staying an August 16, 2026, notice—had already failed to yield any protective orders. The court maintained a firm stance that re-agitating identical issues without substantial changes to the legal circumstances would not be permitted. Justice Banerjee noted: “The petitioner cannot thus be permitted to once again agitate/ re-urge the very same reliefs under the guise of the present application, without challenging them independently, in the very same pending writ petition.”

Disputes Over External Proceedings

During the hearing, the legal team representing the Delhi Amateur Boxing Association attempted to argue for the maintainability of the application by referencing a separate writ petition titled Ajay Singh vs. Union of India & Others , currently pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chandigarh. The petitioner argued that this external litigation provided a basis for the current application’s validity in the Delhi court.

However, the court dismissed this line of reasoning, noting that the proceedings in Chandigarh were not before it. Moreover, the court highlighted that since the petitioner admitted to having already filed an application before the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding those specific matters, any reliance on those proceedings to influence the Delhi High Court’s current order was of no legal consequence. The court refrained from opining on the merits of the Chandigarh case, focusing solely on the procedural limitations of the application before it.

The dismissal brings a temporary halt to the attempt to install an ad-hoc administrative body within the BFI. The core writ petition remains pending before the High Court, and the existing administration under the current leadership continues to manage the federation’s affairs as the court has declined to interfere with the status quo at this stage of the proceedings.

The petitioner, having failed to secure the requested relief, is now left to proceed with the main petition as originally framed. The court’s rejection of the application effectively mandates that any further challenges against the federation’s leadership or its recent governance decisions must be initiated through proper, independent legal challenges rather than through interlocutory applications in an existing case. The matter remains ongoing, with the initial challenge to the BFI’s governance structure still slated for future adjudication by the court.