The High Court of Delhi has asked a lawyer, appointed by the beleagured Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) Secretary-General how the latter could decide to unilaterally over-ride the decision of the EFI Executive Committee to appoint another lawyer to represent the Federation in Court.
(Update: On November 18, the Court took on note an affidavit filed by the EFI Secretary-General on record and, in light of the EFI Executive Committee Resolution, it noticed that Vinayak Bhadari is the advocate authorised to represent EFI. It is being seen as a huge development.)
The dispute between the EFI Executive Committee and its Secretary-General Col. Jaiveer Singh (retd.), which began raging in mid-2024 almost as soon as the High Court reinstated the panel elected in 2019 to administer EFI, has now reached the Court’s corridors. The decision on the Vakalatnamas potentially holds the key to several facets of EFI administration.
Hearing two appeals by the Chandigarh Horse Riders’ Society against single bench rulings in the matter between Rajasthan Equestrian Association and EFI, the Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar on Saturday were presented with a peculiar situation with two sets of lawyers claiming to represent EFI.
Senior counsel Rajiv Dutta had just completed his arguments against the appeal which challenges Justice Sanjeev Narula’s judgement, appointing a Fact Finding Committee and senior counsel Sudhir Nandrajog stood up to speak for the EFI when Siddharth Nath, advised by the Secretary-General, claimed he had the right to represent EFI before the Court.
In its order of November 15, the Division Bench recorded that advocate Vinayak Bhandari had filed his Vakalatnama(document authorising him to represent EFI), along with a resolution of the EFI Executive Committee, whereas advocate Siddharth Nath wished to represent EFI on the basis of a Vakalatnama signed by the Secretary-General.
Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar have asked advocate Siddharth Nath to file an affidavit before it resumes hearing on Tuesday. It requested Siddharth Nath to explain how the Secretary-General, who is a member of the Executive Committee, can take a decision unilaterally overriding the decision of the Executive Committee.
Earlier senior counsel Rajiv Dutta and Ashish Kothari argued against the appeal challenging Justice Sanjeev Narula’s judgement of January 7 last when he appointed a Fact Finding Committee to examine four critical areas of operation (Infrastructure, Participation and Representation of athletes, the function of State Associations and the role of Clubs.
Holding that the exemptions granted to EFI by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports were arbitrary and lacked substantive factual foundation, Justice Narula appointed a Fact Finding Committee and directed it to submit a report for the Ministry to evaluate the findings and make a reasoned decision on the exemption granted to EFI.
Amit Sibal, senior counsel appearing for Chandigarh Horse Riders’ Society, had argued that Justice Sanjeev Narula’s judgement was flawed since the Ministry had documented the reasons for granting EFI exemption from certain important clauses of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011. He also argued that the judgement had ventured into policy domain.
The Bench is also adjudicating an appeal against Justice Sachin Datta’s order of August 13 last, staying the conduct of an Extraordinary General Meeting of the EFI scheduled for August 17, apparently requisitioned by a number of clubs. It would appear that the notice for the meeting was issued before even a single requisition was received.
It is no secret that the EFI Executive Committee and Col. Jaiveer Singh have been at loggerheads for a long time. And that the Court-appointed Observed SY Quraishi has attempted to bring the warring parties on common ground. In fact, the Court recorded the Observer’s admission that he had taken no proactive steps to convene the August 17 meeting.
