Autonomy Upheld: Delhi High Court Strips IOA of Power to Impose Ad Hoc Committees

In a significant ruling for the governance of sports bodies in India, the High Court of Delhi has reaffirmed that the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) does not possess the inherent authority to supersede the elected executive committees of independent sports societies. The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, effectively serves a "keep out" notice to the apex sports body regarding the internal management of non-recognized sports federations.

The Conflict: A Question of Jurisdictional Overreach

The dispute arose after the President of the IOA issued an Office Order on October 13, 2023, appointing an ad hoc committee to take over the affairs of Ski and Snowboard India . The IOA claimed this intervention was necessary to address internal disputes within the federation and to manage the selection of athletes.

Ski and Snowboard India , a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, challenged this move at the High Court . The learned Single Judge initially quashed the IOA's order, leading the IOA to file an Intra-Court appeal.

Arguments: The IOA’s Misplaced Reliance

The IOA anchored its defense on Article 17.5 of its own Rules and Regulations , which permits the formation of "Commissions/Committees" by its President. Counsel for the IOA argued that this provision allowed for the intervention in the affairs of its affiliate bodies.

Furthermore, the IOA attempted to invoke the newly enacted National Sports Governance Act, 2025 , and its associated rules, arguing that the court-mandated elections for the respondent were contrary to the new statutory framework.

The respondents, however, successfully established that: 1. Ski and Snowboard India is an independent entity governed by its own memorandum and by-laws. 2. The body is neither a recognized "National Sports Federation" under the 2011 Code nor a "National Sports Body" under the 2025 Act, rendering the IOA’s reliance on statutory governance provisions entirely misplaced.

Legal Analysis: The Limits of Olympic Authority

The Division Bench dismantled the IOA's position, labelling the interpretation of Article 17.5 as "highly misconceived." Noting that the IOA is itself a society governed by its own internal regulations, the Court clarified that its authority does not extend to the internal governance of independent third-party societies.

The Court emphasized a critical distinction: the provisions of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 apply exclusively to recognized National Sports Bodies. Because Ski and Snowboard India has not sought nor received such recognition, the IOA cannot use the law to force its will upon the federation.

Key Observations

The Court was clear in its disapproval of the IOA's actions:

• "The Commissions and Committees referred to in Article 17.5 are necessarily to be the Commissions and Committees formed by the President of the Indian Olympic Association to transact certain businesses assigned to such Commissions/ Committees of the Indian Olympic Association alone and not those of any other body or society."
• "Admittedly, the respondent No.1 is not a recognised National Sports Federation or a National Sports Body ... and, therefore, the question of applicability of the Act, 2025, over the affairs of the respondent No.1 does not arise at all."
• "Even if respondent No.1 is treated to be an affiliate of the appellant – Indian Olympic Association, learned senior counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any provision of law which permits the Indian Olympic Association to appoint an ad hoc Committee to manage the affairs of its affiliate body."

Final Decision: The Path Forward

The High Court upheld the decision to dissolve the ad hoc committee, reinforcing the authority of the society’s own by-laws. While the Court maintained the direction to conduct fresh elections under a court-appointed Returning Officer, it offered one small relief to the IOA: the federation—not the IOA—must bear the financial burden of the election process.

This judgment serves as a vital precedent, emphasizing that institutional autonomy in sports must be respected, and that membership in a larger body like the IOA does not automatically grant the parent organization a "supervisory" right to hijack domestic management.