SC clarifies Centre not required to seek Delhi HC nod before granting recognition to sports bodies

The Supreme Court clarified to the Centre and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) that they are not required to seek the prior consent of the Delhi High Court before granting recognition to various national sports federations in the country. The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.

New Delhi: In a relief to the Centre and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), the Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that they are not required to seek prior consent of the Delhi High Court before granting recognition to various national sports federations in the country.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports against three high court orders which prohibited the authorities from taking decision on granting recognition to national federations without its prior nod.

The high court order was passed on a 2010 PIL filed by lawyer Rahul Mehra seeking observance of the National Sports Code and directions to the Sports Ministry and the IOA to ensure that National Sports Federations (NSFs) perform their duties well.

The top court observed that there is a tendency for PILs, like rolling stones to gather moss with the lapse of time and requested the Delhi High Court to expeditiously dispose of a writ petition pending since 2010 and settle the controversy.

Abench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and K M Joseph said the Centre was not required to seek consent of the high court before granting recognition to various sports federations under the National Sports Code.

We need to make it clear that the order of the High Court dated February 7, 2020 required the Union Government to apprise the High Court in advance in regard to a decision that may be taken in regard to the grant of provisional recognition to National Sports Federations. Para 6 of the order dated February 7, 2020 does not embody the requirement of taking the consent of the High Court, the bench said.

It added that perhaps this aspect has missed the attention of the High Court in the subsequent order dated June 24, 2020 which erroneously read the requirement of obtaining its consent in the earlier order.

The bench said that since the proceedings before the High Court are pending, it is not appropriate for this court to enter into the merits of the challenge which has been addressed before the High Court by the first respondent (Rahul Mehra).

In the hearing conducted through video conferencing, the bench said if anyone is aggrieved by the non-grant of recognition, they can move the court.

Once a decision is taken by the appropriate authority, which is apprised to the High Court, any person aggrieved by the decision, would be at liberty to pursue the remedies available, it said.

The bench said that the High Court was not correct in holding in its June 24, order that there was a breach of its directions on the ground that the Union government had failed to obtain its consent.

It said that the February 7, order of the High Court only required the Ministry to place its decision in advance before the High Court and there was no requirement of obtaining the consent of the High Court.

It said, Since the writ petition is pending before the High Court since 2010, we request the High Court to take it up for expeditious disposal so that the controversy can be settled. There is a tendency for PILs, like rolling stones to gather moss with the lapse of time.

Additional Solicitor General K M Natraj, appearing for the Centre said there are several federations and if it was to seek consent of the High Court before granting recognition to any federation, the whole process will come to a standstill.

He also contended that "this will amount to an overreach of judicial powers in the executive realm".

Advocate Shyel Trehan, appearing for the Indian Hockey Federation submitted that the procedure envisaged by the High Court will jeopardize participation at national and international meets.

She submitted that the PIL filed by Mehra has not been disposed of despite the lapse of ten years because when the case is listed a new interim application is moved before the High Court, diverting judicial time to interlocutory applications.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mehra said that his grievance is in regard to the manner in which provisional recognition is being granted in violation of the governing requirements of the Sports Code.

Earlier, the Sports Ministry and the IOA had said they have decided to approach the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi High Court order which prohibits the ministry from taking any decision on grant of recognition to national federations.

On August 7, the ministry had requested the high court to modify the order and allow at least the grant of recognition to the NSFs but the court rejected that plea and asked for a National Sports Code compliance report.

The ministry had then sent across a questionnaire to the NSFs seeking the age and tenure details of their office-bearers. A total of 56 NSFs responded.

(PTI REPORT)