SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 852

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Najmi Waziri, Vikas Mahajan, JJ.
Rahul Mehra - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8691 of 2020
Decided On : 26-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC, Mr. Aditya Vikaram Singh, Advocate, Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC, for the Respondent.

Strict adherence to the National Sports Code is essential for accessing benefits, and no further exemptions should be granted to non-compliant NSFs.

Headnote:

National Sports Code - Compliance by National Sports Federations - 1975 Circular, 2001 Guidelines - The court directed the respondent to ensure compliance with the National Sports Code and orders passed by the courts. The court closely monitored the progress of the National Sports Federations in complying with the Sports Code and directed the respondents to file regular compliance reports. Non-compliance would result in de-recognition and cessation of government benefits. The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the Sports Code for accessing benefits and held that no further exemptions should be granted to non-compliant NSFs.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought compliance by National Sports Federations (NSFs) with the National Sports Code and court orders. The court directed the respondent to ensure compliance and closely monitored the progress of NSFs. The petitioner also highlighted the lack of easy access to sports facilities for ordinary citizens.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that many NSFs were not complying with the National Sports Code despite enjoying governmental grants and recognition. It emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the Sports Code for accessing benefits and held that no further exemptions should be granted to non-compliant NSFs.

Issues: Non-compliance of National Sports Federations with the National Sports Code and court orders, lack of easy access to sports facilities for ordinary citizens.

Ratio Decidendi: Strict adherence to the National Sports Code is essential for accessing benefits, and no further exemptions should be granted to non-compliant NSFs.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to ensure compliance with the National Sports Code and orders passed by the courts, closely monitor the progress of NSFs, and file regular compliance reports. Non-compliance would result in de-recognition and cessation of government benefits.

    ORDER

    W.P.(C) 8691/2020, CM APPL. 28033/2020, CM APPL. 28090/2020 CM APPL. 32616/2020, CM APPL. 33548/2020, CM APPL. 33549/2020, CM APPL. 757/2021, CM APPL. 2435/2021, CM APPL. 5435/2021, CM APPL. 7815/2022 & CM APPL. 7816/2022

    The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

    1. Seasons may come and seasons may go but some entities remain recalcitrant to abide by the law of the land. Despite a passage of 57 years, many National Sports Federations ('NSFs') have not complied with the Government of India's National Sports Code, 2011 (Sports Code), the 1975 Circular, the 2001 Guidelines and the judgments of courts. Generations of youth have turned to middle age and into senior citizens, without having had the benefit or availability of even minimum sports infrastructure or fair opportunities for participating or excelling in or enjoying the sports discipline of their choice. Compliance is to be ensured largely by the Government of India which grants recognition to sports bodies as NSF. Non-compliance, with the regime of law, is clearly against public interest.

    2. In essence, this writ petition seeks compliance by NSFs with the Sports Code and orders passed by the courts. The petitioner says that despite more than a decade having gone by, many NSFs continue to breach the Sports Code and its strict mandates, while simultaneously they continue to enjoy governmental grants, concessions and recognition. There have been, however, notable instances when the Government of India has acted strictly against non-compliance by erring NSFs and the latter have promptly fallen in line.

    3. On 08.01.2021 and 22.01.2021, this court had directed the respondent as under:-

      Order dated 08.01.2021

      1. On 06.11.2020, the Court had passed the following order:

      CMAPPL. 28034/2020 (for exemption)

      Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

      W.P.(C) 8691/2020

      1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for several reliefs against the respondent/Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, UOI including issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to grant recognition to NSFs only on their being compliant with the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 duly notified by UOI and mandatorily applicable to all NSFs. Strict adherence to the Code has been insisted upon by the UOI in various proceedings before this court as well as before the Supreme Court.

      2. We are of the opinion that before hearing submissions on admission, Mr. Anil Soni, learned CGSC appearing for the Union of India be called upon to assist this court by indicating as to whether all the 41 NSFs referred to in para 8.32 of the writ petition are in compliance with the Sports Code, in terms of the letter dated 07.08.2020, addressed by the UOI to them, more specifically, in terms of the performa annexed to the said letter (Annexures K and M), placed at Annexure P-12.

      3. Mr. Anil Soni, states that he will prepare a tabulated statement alongwith copies of the replies submitted by all the 41 NSFs, in terms of the letter dated 07.08.2020 issued by the Ministry and the latter's satisfaction apropos the requirements. The same be filed in the Registry initially for the perusal of this court. Thereafter, on directions to be issued, the said details shall be shared with the petitioner. Needful shall be done within two weeks.

      4. List on 08.01.2021

      2. This order has not been complied with by the respondent. Instead, the respondent has filed a short affidavit, wherein it is stated that Mr. Anil Soni, Standing Counsel, did not have instructions as he appeared in the matter on the first date. It is stated that the submissions of Mr. Soni may not be treated as representation/stand of the respondent.

      3. We reject this affidavit of the respondent for the reason that in the aforesaid order, no submission of Mr. Soni as such, was recorded. The Court had proceeded to direct the respondent to file an affidavit with a tabulation indicating the status of compli

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top