Carrom body earns dubious distinction, but MYAS must have same yardstick for all NSFs

The High Court of Delhi has barred a national sports body from using India in its name after the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports shared its stand that it does not recognise the All India Carrom Federation (AICF) as a National Sports Federation because its elections were not held in accordance with the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.

This has understandably created a storm of headlines since AICF has earned the dubious distinction of being the first national sports body to be ordered not to use the word India its name. The National Sports Development Code of India, 2011, specifies that only recognised National Sports Federations are allowed to use India in their names.

Interestingly, in December 2021, the High Court of Kerala had ruled that the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, only prevented commercial entities from using Kerala, Bharat or India in their names. However, in June 2022, a Division Bench of the Court set that judgement aside. 

Be that as it may, it its short affidavit submitted to the High Court of Delhi in a bunch of writs featuring the All India Carrom Federation, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India submitted that the AICF elections held on August 27, 2023, for the 2023-27 term violated the Code. 

The Ministry submitted that AICF affiliation of Maharashtra Carrom Association and Vidarbha Carrom Association was against the one-State-one-unit tenet stipulated in the Model Election Guidelines in the Code. It pointed out that the Ministry had asked AICF on December 7, 2020, that the Federation was in violation of the Code and hence would not be recognised.

The Ministry also took cognizance of complaints that eight State Associations had not been sent invitations while continuing to include representative of two associations from the State of Maharashtra in its electoral college. In its wisdom, AICF had decided to split the two Maharashtra votes between the two associations.

In wanting to show that the Electoral College was formed in adherence of the Code, AICF President Rakibul Hussain decreed that Vidarbha and Maharashtra would be considered as one unit and either would have one vote each until their merger could be completed. The Ministry was not amused by the quick-fix approach.

It also becomes evident that the Returning Officer appointed by a National Sports Federation is unlikely to verify if the electoral college is Code-compliant or not, even if it is a former Judge of a High Court – as Justice SS Chauhan (retd), a former Judge of the Allahabad High Court, was in the case of the Carrom body’s election.

The Ministry officials’ strict enforcement of the Code in the case of AICF – especially focusing on the non-compliance with the Model Election Guidelines – stands in stark contrast to their approach to some other National Sports Federations from the time the Ministry decided to codify the rules, regulations, directives and notifications that the Federations were subject to.

Let’s take All India Tennis Association, for example. It did not escape the attention of the High Court of Delhi that the Ministry’s short affidavit filed on November 22, 2024, did not directly address the contention of the petitioners (Somdev Devvarman and Purav Rajas) with regard to violations of the National Sports Code by AITA and its constitution.

The result of the election to the AITA Executive Committee, held on September 28, 2024, have been placed in a sealed cover with the High Court of Delhi. The Ministry has made little attempt to resolve the AITA administration quandary, allowing officials whose tenure has ended to continue in their positions – in violation of the Code – as they are protected by a Court order.

To look at another instance, officials of the Ministry refused to recognise the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) until the world body, United World of Wrestling, threatened to bar India and its grapplers from international competitions. It was almost as if they took a 180-degree turn from the stand they had adopted with regards to the WFI election.

There are several such instances, not the least being their turning a blind eye to the fact that Equestrian Federation of India was in gross violation of the Code. And after years of threatening EFI with derecognition, the Ministry officials decided to grant EFI exemption from compliance with some critical provisions of the Code.

Is it too much to expect Ministry officials to have a uniform approach to all National Sports Federations especially in terms of compliance with the Model Election Guidelines? The anarchy in sports governance perhaps stems from the fact that the compiler and enforcer of the Code is itself not assessing all national sports bodies through a standard lens but prefers convenient one.