Supreme Court of India
MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATIONversusRAHUL MEHRA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 610
- Decided
- 1 May 2019
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- A M KHANWILKAR
Holding
The Administrator exceeded his statutory authority; only the four amendments approved by the Supreme Court are valid, and all other amendments and the elections based on them are null and void.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the conduct of a court‑appointed Administrator who was tasked with amending the Constitution of the Archery Association of India (AAI) and conducting elections. The Administrator unilaterally introduced several amendments beyond the four changes expressly approved by the Court in its order of 4 December 2017 and held elections based on that altered Constitution. The Court held that the Administrator exceeded the limited mandate, as any further amendment required prior Court approval and must follow the procedure laid down in the AAI’s own Constitution. Consequently, all amendments beyond the four approved ones and the elections held on 22 December 2018 were declared null and void and non est. The Court restored the position as of 4 December 2017, directed that fresh elections be conducted within four weeks in accordance with the four approved amendments, and relieved the Administrator of his duties. The appeals were allowed and the related applications disposed.
Issues considered
- The scope of the Supreme Court's order dated 4 December 2017 regarding the Administrator's authority to amend the AAI Constitution.
- Whether the Administrator's unilateral amendments beyond the four Court‑approved changes are valid.
- Whether elections conducted on the basis of the Administrator’s amended Constitution are lawful.
- What procedural steps are required for further constitutional amendments of a sports association under the National Sports Code.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 19, s. Article 33
Subjects
Sports association governanceConstitutional amendmentCourt‑appointed administratorElection nullityNational Sports CodeJudicial reviewNon estAssociation law
Judgment
370 [2019]
SUPREME COURT 7 S.C.R. 370
REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.
A MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION
v.
RAHUL MEHRA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4771 of 2019 etc.)
B MAY 01, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Sports :
Archery Association of India (AAI) – Constitution of –
C Amendment by Court appointed Administrator – Propriety of – Writ
petition on the issue of governance and functioning of AAI – High
court by interim order appointed ‘Administrator’ for supervision of
the affairs of Archery Association – Appeal to Supreme Court
challenging the order appointing the Administrator – Supreme Court
by interim order dated 4.12.2017 directed the Association to amend
D
its Constitution and directed the Administrator to conduct elections
within a period of four weeks – Archery Association of India placed
on record the amended Constitution in terms of the order dated
4.12.2017 – The Administrator also filed compliance report together
with a new Constitution as amended by him – Held: The Administrator
E had carried out the amendments beyond what was permitted and
approved by Supreme Court in terms of order dated 4.12.2017 –
The Administrator could have taken only such steps as were permitted
by Supreme Court – Constitution could have been amended only in
accordance with law i.e. by the elected body after interacting with
all the stakeholders and members – The Administrator had no power
F
to amend the Constitution, much less unilaterally, except for the
four amendments approved by Supreme Court – Therefore, the steps
taken by the Administrator beyond the scope of the authority
bestowed upon him, must be treated as non est in law – All the steps
taken by the Administrator, including the elections conducted by
G him, on the basis of the Constitution amended by him, also has to be
treated as null and void and non est in law.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The core issue to be answered in the present
proceedings is about the purport of the order passed by this Court
H
370
MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION v. RAHUL 371
MEHRA AND ORS.
on 4th December, 2017. The background in which the said order A
came to be passed after hearing the parties, leaves no manner of
doubt that it had modified the impugned order of the High Court
dated 10th August, 2017. Further, the contentious issues regarding
the proposed amendment in the Constitution stood answered to
that extent. In that, this Court passed a peremptory order not
B
only for approving the proposed amendments, as noted in the
order dated 4 th December, 2017, but also directed the
Administrator to conduct elections in consonance thereto within
a period of four weeks, after incorporating the amendments within
one week from the date of the order. That was the limited mandate
given to the Administrator. Indeed, this Court had given liberty C
to the Administrator to seek clarification or directions if and when
necessary. That liberty, however, by no stretch of imagination
could be mistaken as authorising the Administrator to carry out
amendments in the Constitution beyond the four amendments
referred to in the order dated 4th December, 2017, much less to
D
do so unilaterally without any prior notice to all the stakeholders
and due deliberations with them as mandated by the Constitution
of the Archery Association of India (AAI). In any case, any further
amendments to the Constitution could be incorporated only after
taking prior permission of this Court which was still in seisen of
the matter. The Administrator was also ill-advised not to seek E
extension of time for completion of election process, which was
to be completed not later than five weeks from 4 th December,
2017. [Para 12] [382-E-H; 383-A-B]
2. The Administrator, however, merely filed a compliance
report on 24 th September, 2018, in the Registry of this Court F
without attempting even once to invite the attention of this Court
thereto. The Administrator has also filed a further report in terms
of the order dated 28th March, 2019. On perusal of the said
reports, it can be accepted that the steps taken by the
Administrator were under a mistaken belief - that he had the
authority to proceed in the manner that he did and including to G
amend the Constitution beyond the four amendments referred
to in the order dated 4th December, 2017. It is not a case of
defiance or disobedience of the Court’s order as such. [Para 13]
[383-E-F]
H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.
A 3. The Administrator could have taken only such steps as
were permitted by this Court vide order dated 4th December,
2017, in their letter and spirit. Indisputably, the additional
amendments incorporated by the Administrator have resulted in
denial of right to represent in and contest elections of the AAI
for the existing members. Even the direction given by the High
B
Court whilst appointing the Administrator vide the impugned
judgment, in no way gave authority to the Administrator to amend
the Constitution, but was limited to conduct elections on the basis
of the Constitution as it stood then. As ordered by the High Court,
it was for the newly elected body to take steps in the right earnest
C to amend the Constitution to bring it in line with the National
Sports Code on specified matters and then to conduct fresh
elections on the basis of such amended Constitution. Thus. the
Constitution could be amended only in accordance with law, which
means by the elected body af ter interacting with all the
stakeholders and members. The Administrator had no power to
D
amend the Constitution, much less unilaterally, except for the
four amendments approved by this Court, for which no further
formality was required to be undertaken. The Administrator was
obliged to conduct elections on the basis of such amended
Constitution in terms of the order of this Court dated 4 th
E December, 2017. No more and no less. [Para 15] [384-C-F]
4. The right to form an Association included the right to its
continuance and any law altering the composition of the
Association compulsorily will be a breach of the right to form the
Association. Thus understood, the steps taken by the
F Administrator beyond the scope of the authority bestowed upon
him in terms of the order of this Court dated 4th December, 2017,
cannot be validated by the Court but must be treated as non est
in law. It would have been a different matter if the Administrator
had presented the additional amendments before this Court and
invited this Court to approve the same after hearing the
G concerned parties. [Para 17] [385-F-G]
Smt. Damyanti Naranga v. The Union of India and Ors.
(1971) 1 SCC 678 : [1971] 3 SCR 840 – followed.
G.K. Ghose and Anr. v. E.X. Joseph (1963) Supp. 3
H SCR 789 – relied on.
MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION v. RAHUL 373
MEHRA AND ORS.
5. The further amendments to the Constitution could be A
effected only in the manner provided by the Constitution of the
AAI including in terms of the order dated 4th December, 2017. It
is thus not necessary for the Court to examine as to whether, in
fact, there was any deviation or not from the dispensation
predicated in the National Sports Code. [Para 18] [386-A-B]
B
Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association of
Bihar and Ors. (2016) 8SCC 535 : [2016] 8 SCR 606
– held inapplicable.
6. All the steps taken by the Administrator, including the
elections conducted by him on the basis of the Constitution (as C
amended by him), will have to be treated as null and void and non
est in law. The parties will have to be relegated to the position as
on 4th December, 2017, consequent to incorporation of the four
amendments approved in terms of the same order. After carrying
out those four amendments in the Constitution, the election will
have to be conducted to constitute the new body, which would D
then take steps to introduce further amendments to the
Constitution, if so required, to bring it in line with the National
Sports Code, after giving an opportunity to all concerned. Only
after the amendments are accepted and approved, fresh elections
be conducted for constituting a new body in conformity with such E
duly amended Constitution. [Para 19] [386-C-E]
7. The controversy cannot be adjudicated on the basis of
perception of the World Archery body. Similarly, the scope of the
present proceedings cannot be expanded as the main writ petition
is still pending before the High Court, where all issues can be F
deliberated and answered appropriately. While doing so, the High
Court, no doubt, would be guided by the exposition in *Sheela
Barse case and **Board of Control for Cricket in India case.
[Para 20] [386-F-G]
*Sheela Barse case v. Union of India and Ors. (1988) G
4 SCC 226 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 295 ; K. Murugan
v. Fencing Association of India, Jabalpur and Ors.
(1991) 2 SCC 412 : [2016] 6 SCR 635; **Board of
Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of
H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.
A Bihar and Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 251 : [2015] 1 SCR 165
– referred to.
8. The Constitution of AAI is amended only to the extent
of four amendments referred to in the order dated 4th December,
2017, treating it as amended by an order of this Court, without
B requiring to comply with any other formality. Rest of the
amendments are declared as null and void and non est in law. The
same, at best, may be pursued as a proposal to be considered
after the newly elected body initiates a procedure for carrying
out further amendments to the Constitution of AAI as per law.
[Para 22 (I)] [387-D-E]
C
9. All the steps taken by the Administrator on the basis of
the Administrator’s Constitution, including the elections
conducted on 22nd December, 2018, are null and void and non est
in law. The High Court-appointed Administrator stands relieved
in terms of this order. The elected body, in office, would continue
D to function hereafter as a Committee of Administrators appointed
in terms of this order. This Committee is allowed to continue in
office as nothing adverse has been brought to the notice of the
Court for their continuation until the newly elected body takes
over. However, the Committee shall discharge only routine and
E day-to-day activities and shall not take any policy decision or
create new financial liability, until the newly elected body takes
over. [Paras 22 (II) and (III)] [387-E-H]
10. The election for constituting the new elected body be
completed by the aforementioned Committee appointed by this
F Court within four weeks from today and the election process must
be conducted strictly in accordance with the Constitution as
amended in terms of order dated 4 th December, 2017.
[Para 22(IV)] [388-B]
Case Law Reference
G [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 295 referred to Para 14
[2016] 6 SCR 635 referred to Para 14
AIR 1925 Lahore 309 referred to Para 14
[1971] 3 SCR 840 followed Para 16
H
MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION v. RAHUL 375
MEHRA AND ORS.
[1963] Supp. 3 SCR 789 relied on Para 16 A
[2016] 8 SCR 606 held inapplicable Para 18
[1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 295 referred to Para 20
[2016] 6 SCR 635 referred to Para 20
[2015] 1 SCR 165 referred to Para 20 B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4771
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CM No. 10461 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 195 of
C
2010.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4772, 4773 of 2019.
Shyam Divan, Sunil Gupta, Sr. Advs., Siddharth Dave, Sahil
Tagotra, Ms. Neha Sangwan, Amit Agrawal, Sahil Raveen, Sugandha, D
Shushil Dutt Salwan, Nikunj Dayal, Pramod Dayal, Ms. Payal Dayal,
Aditya Garg, Arjun Garg, Advs. for the Appellant.
K. M. Natrajan, ASG, Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv.,
R. Balasubramanian, Ms. Durga Dutt, Prashant Singh, Raj
Bahadur Yadav, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Pritam Bishwas, Ms. Pragya E
Parijat Singh, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Ms. Aishwarya
Kane, Ms. Gayatri Verma, Hrishikesh Baruah, S. Lakshmi, Hemant
Phalpher, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Ms. Jaya Suri Phalpher, Parth Goswami,
Hemant P., Ms. Radhika Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
Mr.Rahul Mehra, Respondent-in-person. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent No.1 has filed a public interest litigation before
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, being Writ Petition (Civil) No.195 G
of 2010, raising issues of transparency in governance and functioning of
the Archery Association of India (for short the “AAI”). Several interim
orders came to be passed in the said writ petition which are not relevant
for answering the controversy in the present proceedings. The present
special leave petitions emanate from the order dated 10th August, 2017
H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.
A passed by the High Court in C.M. No.10461 of 2017 filed by respondent
No.1 (writ petitioner) inter alia for appointment of Administrator/
Returning Officer including to conduct elections of AAI in compliance
with the High Court’s order dated 15th December, 2016, as well as stay
of notice dated 2nd March, 2017 of the AAI, calling for an emergency
meeting of the General Council on 15th March, 2017 and, in the
B
alternative, to stay the outcome of such meeting if held, till the Court
appoints an Administrator/Returning Officer. The High Court after
hearing the parties passed the following order:
“20. In the circumstances, the Court deems it appropriate that the
affairs of the Archery Association of India (AAI) be brought under
C the supervision of an Administrator till its Constitution is amended
and elections are held in terms of this Court’s order dated
15.12.2016. The Court also deems it appropriate that for the
present, the affairs and elections of AAI be conducted by a person
of public eminence with significant experience in sports affairs
D and administration and elections. We are of the opinion that Mr.
S.Y. Quraishi, Former Chief Election Commissioner of India, who
has also served as Secretary in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and
Sports, Government of India would be a suitable person to be
appointed as the Administrator-cum-Returning Officer for
discharge of the following functions:
E
(i) To resolve the issue of disaffiliation of such members/units of
AAI as on 15.12.2016, within a month from today by giving them
two weeks’ notice and if their membership can be regularized in
terms of the ‘unamended’ Constitution, it shall be so regularized;
F (ii) the Electoral College of the AAI shall be prepared and elections
shall be held in six weeks thereafter. This elected body shall carry
out the amendments to the Constitution to bring it in conformity
with the National Sports Code.
(iii) Thereafter, a fresh round of elections, shall be carried out as
G per the amended Constitution and in terms of the National Sports
Code, to ensure that age and tenure restrictions and due
representation of the sports persons are strictly complied with.
The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of 4 months
from today.
H
MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION v. RAHUL 377
MEHRA AND ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
(iv) The AAI shall make available to the Administrator an A
appropriate office space and facilities for the discharge of the
aforesaid directions and make available such staff and personnel
as the Administrator may express the need for. Alternatively, the
Administrator may appoint such personnel to assist him in the
aforesaid matter and expenses towards the same shall be borne
B
by the AAI.
(v) Till the elections are conducted and results declared in
consonance of the National Sports Code and in compliance with
the preceding directions, the AAI shall not make any new financial
commitments except with the prior approval of the Administrator.
Routine expenses of AAI too shall be defrayed, with the due prior C
approval of the Administrator.
21. The applicant and the AAI shall seek consent of Mr. S.Y.
Quraishi, of his acceptance of the aforementioned responsibility.
22. The Court would consider fixing an honorarium for the D
Administrator’s assignment at a later date.
23. The application is disposed off in the above terms.”
3. This decision is assailed by way of an appeal [arising out of
SLP(C) Diary No.29577/2017] filed by Maharashtra Archery Association
(for short “MAA”), appeal [arising out of SLP(C) Diary No.28788/2017] E
filed by the Archery Association of India (for short “AAI”), and the
appeal [arising out of SLP(C) Diary No.29202/2017] filed by Kerala
State Archery Association (for short “KSAA”). When these special
leave petitions came up for hearing on 18th September, 2017, the Court
recorded the submission of the appellant(s) that the constitution of AAI F
stood amended in accordance with the National Sports Development
Code of India, 2011 (for short “the Sports Code”). The counsel appearing
for Union of India prayed for time to verify the said position. Later, this
Court directed the Ministry of Sports to file an affidavit regarding
compliance, on or before 26th October, 2017. Eventually, the affidavit of
the competent officer of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, G
Government of India, came to be filed. It is not necessary for us to dilate
on the contents of the said affidavit. For, the matters were heard on 4th
December, 2017 whence, after hearing the parties, the Court proceeded
to pass the following order:
H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.
A “Heard Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel and Mr. Salwan,
learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Narasimha, learned
Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. Rahul
Mehra, respondent appearing in person. It is submitted by Mr.
Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General that though certain
amendments have been carried out in the constitution, yet they
B
are not in consonance with the National Sports Development Code,
2011 (NSDCI) of the MYAS. In the affidavit filed by the Union
of India, certain deviations have been pointed out. They read as
follows :
‘i. The NSDCI provides that the election of office bearer of
C an NSF shall be conducted in accordance with the Model
Election Bye-laws of the NSDCI, copy whereof is annexed
herewith and marked ANNEXURE R/3 [PAGE 12 TO 51].
As per the provisions of the said election bye-laws, the Office
Bearer and Members of the Managing Committee shall be
D elected by secret ballot. However, the Constitution of the AAI
provides that election of office bearers of the AAI shall be
held as per the rules and regulations which may be adopted by
the General Council, and there is no mention in the Constitution
of the AAI that such election shall be held by secret ballot.
E ii. As per the principles underlying the NSDCI, an affiliated
member of a National Sports Federation (NSF), i.e., a full
member of the NSF, should be represented by two delegates
in the General Council (by whatever name called). The
Constitution of AAI shows each State Association has been
given representation of three delegates in the General Council
F i.e. one representative over and above the minimum of two
representatives.
iii. The NSDCI provides that an NSF shall give affiliation as a
full member to a State Association if such State Association
has at least 50% of the district units functioning in that State as
G per Para 3.10 and Para 3.19 of Annexure-II of the Code. But
no such stipulation is found in the eligibility conditions for
affiliation of State Associations as members of the AAI.
iv. The Constitution of AAI also makes a provision that up to
three persons may be bestowed the title of Honorary Life
H
MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION v. RAHUL 379
MEHRA AND ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
President of AAI, without voting rights, in recognition of the A
services rendered by past Presidents of AAI. The NSDCI is
silent on the matter.’
Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel and Mr. Salwan, learned
counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that the amendment
shall be carried out keeping in view the said deviations within a B
week hence.
In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that
amendment shall be incorporated by treating it as an
order of the Court. After the constitution comes into
force, election shall be held under the supervision of C
Mr. S.Y. Quraishi who has been appointed as the
Administrator by the High Court, within four weeks
therefrom. Mr. Quraishi is requested to see that the
election takes place in accordance with the amended
constitution which stands amended by incorporation by
virtue of order passed by this Court, as agreed to by D
learned counsel for the parties.
The amended constitution shall be filed before
this Court and a copy whereof be supplied to Mr.
Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr
Rahul Mehra, respondent-in-person. But the filing of the E
amended constitution will not postpone the election, as
directed hereinabove. To elaborate, amendment shall be
incorporated stating the same as an order of the Court
within a week hence and thereafter Mr. Quraishi shall
proceed to hold the election in accordance with the F
constitution which will come into existence by virtue of
the order passed today.
Mr. Quraishi shall be at liberty to see that the
constitution of the Association is strictly in accordance
with the Code and thereafter proceed with the election. G
If he has any reservation, he is at liberty to move this
Court.
List after eight weeks.”
(emphasis supplied)
H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.
A 4. As a matter of fact, the contentious issues regarding the relevant
amendment carried out to the Constitution of AAI stood resolved in
terms of this order. Further, this Court issued certain peremptory directions
to the Administrator to ensure compliance thereof within the timeline
specified in the order. The appeals could have been disposed of in terms
of the said order itself, but the same were kept pending with a sanguine
B
hope that the directions given therein would be complied with within the
time-frame specified in the order and that the compliance report would
be submitted by the Administrator in that regard. The appellant (AAI)
filed an application before this Court on 11 th December, 2017, being I.A.
No.135882 of 2017 and placed on record the final amended Constitution
C in terms of the order of this Court dated 4th December, 2017. The
appellant (AAI) then filed a separate I.A. No.132436 of 2018 on 13 th
September, 2018, seeking directions to hold elections as per the Court
approved Constitution.
5. The Administrator, Mr. S.Y. Quraishi, appointed by the High
D Court finally filed a compliance report in the Registry of this Court on
24th September, 2018, being document No.139081/2018 in appeal arising
from SLP(C) Diary No.29577/2017, together with the new Constitution
(for short “Administrator’s Constitution”). Be it noted that, admittedly,
the Constitution filed by the Administrator contained several other
amendments than the permitted or approved amendments in terms of
E the order of this Court dated 4th December, 2017. It is also not in dispute
that no formal application has been moved by the Administrator (appointed
by the High Court) before this Court seeking liberty to amend the
Constitution beyond the amendments referred to in the order of this
Court dated 4th December, 2017. Further, no direction was sought from
F this Court to permit the Administrator to conduct elections on the basis
of the amendments incorporated by him in the new Constitution. The
grievance of the appellants is that this amended Administrator’s
Constitution was not even circulated to the constituent members until it
came to be filed in this Court.
G 6. Thus, the grievance of the appellant(s) is that the Administrator
had carried out amendments beyond what was permitted and approved
by this Court in terms of the order dated 4th December, 2017, that too
without any discussion with the members and stakeholders. That
Constitution however, came to be notified for the first time on 4th October,
2018, through e-mail to the members - State Association(s) along with a
H
MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION v. RAHUL 381
MEHRA AND ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
notice for election for the office bearers of AAI to be conducted by the A
Administrator on 22nd December 2018, at 11.00 A.M.
7. The appellant (AAI) immediately rushed to this Court by way
of I.A. No.15611 of 2018, seeking directions to the Administrator to
conduct elections in conformity with the Court approved Constitution
and seeking further directions to the Union of India to restore recognition B
of the AAI which was de-recognised on 17th December, 2012. That
application was moved for passing suitable directions by this Court on
19th November, 2018, when the Court, after hearing the parties, passed
the following order:
“Since the election programme has already commenced in terms C
of notice dated 4th October, 2018, the same should proceed as per
law uninterrupted.
We clarify that the result of the election will be subject to
the outcome of this application.
The grievance made in this application inter alia about improper D
amendments to the Constitution can be considered at a later stage.
List this application in the second week of February, 2019.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. Resultantly, the election process was concluded in accordance E
with the Administrator’s Constitution and not as per the amended
Constitution in terms of the order of this Court dated 4th December,
2017. As a result, the representatives of the appellant Association(s)
could not contest the election due to the restrictions prescribed in the
Administrator’s Constitution.
F
9. The Union of India has also filed a separate application being
I.A. No.15103/2019 on 24th January, 2019, raising objections to the
Administrator’s Constitution being in violation of the Sports Code. Even
the Indian Olympic Association (for short “IOA”) has filed document
No.24274/2018 on 8th February, 2019, objecting to the Administrator’s
Constitution being in violation of the Sports Code and the Constitution of G
the World Archery. Another application has been filed by Kerala State
Archery Association (“KSAA”), being I.A. No.30011/2019 on 18th
February, 2019, for directions to declare that the elections conducted by
the Administrator on the basis of the Administrator’s Constitution, is
null and void and to appoint a new Returning Officer to hold fresh H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.
A elections in consonance with the Court approved Constitution, in terms
of the order dated 4th December, 2017. The appellant (MAA) has also
filed an application on 1st March, 2019, being I.A. No.3792/2019 seeking
a direction to declare the Administrator’s Constitution as void ab initio
and to appoint a Returning Officer/Observer to conduct fresh election
for AAI in terms of the Court approved Constitution as per order dated
B
4th December, 2017. The Union of India, as per the liberty given by this
Court, has filed an affidavit on 5th March, 2019 highlighting the deviations
in the Administrator’s Constitution and the Sports Code.
10. During the course of hearing of these matters, before closing
the matter for judgment, the Court called upon the Administrator, appointed
C by the High Court, to submit a flow chart pointing out the steps taken by
him from 4th December, 2017 till 22nd December, 2018, until the election
of the new body. The Administrator has accordingly filed a compilation
giving details about the follow up steps taken by him in that regard.
11. We have heard Mr. K.M. Natarajan, learned Additional
D Solicitor General appearing for Union of India, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr.
Sunil Gupta, Mr. Siddharth Dave, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Mr. Gopal
Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respective parties
and Mr. Rahul Mehra, respondent No.1 appearing-in-person.
12. The core issue to be answered in these proceedings is about
E the purport of the order passed by this Court on 4th December, 2017.
The background in which the said order came to be passed after hearing
the parties, leaves no manner of doubt that it had modified the impugned
order of the High Court dated 10th August, 2017. Further, the contentious
issues regarding the proposed amendment in the Constitution stood
F answered to that extent. In that, this Court passed a peremptory order
not only for approving the proposed amendments, as noted in the order
dated 4th December, 2017, but also directed the Administrator to conduct
elections in consonance thereto within a period of four weeks, after
incorporating the amendments within one week from the date of the
order. That was the limited mandate given to the Administrator. Indeed,
G this Court had given liberty to the Administrator to seek clarification or
directions if and when necessary. That liberty, however, by no stretch of
imagination could be mistaken as authorising the Administrator to carry
out amendments in the Constitution beyond the four amendments referred
to in the order dated 4th December, 2017, much less to do so unilaterally
H without any prior notice to all the stakeholders and due deliberations
MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION v. RAHUL 383
MEHRA AND ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
with them as mandated by the Constitution of the AAI. In any case, any A
further amendments to the Constitution could be incorporated only after
taking prior permission of this Court which was still in seisen of the
matter. The Administrator was also ill-advised not to seek extension of
time for completion of election process, which was to be completed not
later than five weeks from 4th December, 2017.
B
13. The stand taken by the Administrator is that the order dated
4th December, 2017 gave him liberty to ensure that the Constitution of
the Association is strictly in accordance with the Sports Code and only
thereafter to proceed with the election. Indeed, liberty was given to the
Administrator in the last paragraph of the order dated 4th December,
2017. However, the order if read as a whole and keeping in mind the C
spirit of the order, it had directed the Administrator to ensure timely
completion of election within five weeks from the date of the order on
the basis of four amendments approved by the Court, which were
required to be incorporated by the Administrator within one week from
the date of the order. No more and no less. For any other doubt or D
deviation, the Administrator was obliged to seek clarification and
appropriate directions from this Court, before the expiry of the timeline
given in the order dated 4th December, 2017. The Administrator, however,
merely filed a compliance report on 24th September, 2018, in the Registry
of this Court without attempting even once to invite the attention of this
Court thereto. The Administrator has also filed a further report in terms E
of the order dated 28th March, 2019. On perusal of the said reports, we
may hasten to accept the plea that the steps taken by the Administrator
were under a mistaken belief - that he had the authority to proceed in
the manner that he did and including to amend the Constitution beyond
the four amendments referred to in the order dated 4th December, 2017. F
It is not a case of defiance or disobedience of the Court’s order as such.
14. The appellant(s) would contend that even if it is not a case of
intentional disobedience of the order of this Court by the Administrator,
however, since steps taken by him are not in conformity with the spirit of
the directions given by the Court, the same be declared as null and void G
and non est. For, his actions had caused serious prejudice owing to the
unilateral, unauthorised action taken by him, including of having deprived
the members of the appellant Association(s) from representing and
participating in the election process of the apex body, which they were
otherwise entitled to under the Constitution, as approved by this Court in
H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.
A terms of the order dated 4th December, 2017. All this having been done
by the Court appointed Administrator, in the guise of an order of this
Court, the Court must step in and nullify all the actions taken by the
Administrator which are beyond the scope of the order dated 4 th
December, 2017. To buttress this submission, reliance has been placed
on Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P)
B
Ltd. and Anr.1, Anita International Vs. Tungabadra Sugar Works
Mazdoor Sangh and Ors.2, and Bihari Lal Vs. Shankar Das and
Ors. 3
15. We are in agreement with the stand taken by the appellant(s)
that the Administrator could have taken only such steps as were permitted
C by this Court vide order dated 4th December, 2017, in their letter and
spirit. Indisputably, the additional amendments incorporated by the
Administrator have resulted in denial of right to represent in and contest
elections of the AAI for the existing members. Notably, even the direction
given by the High Court whilst appointing the Administrator vide the
D impugned judgment, in no way gave authority to the Administrator to
amend the Constitution, but was limited to conduct elections on the basis
of the Constitution as it stood then. As ordered by the High Court, it was
for the newly elected body to take steps in the right earnest to amend
the Constitution to bring it in line with the National Sports Code on specified
matters and then to conduct fresh elections on the basis of such amended
E Constitution. In other words, the Constitution could be amended only in
accordance with law, which means by the elected body after interacting
with all the stakeholders and members. The Administrator had no power
to amend the Constitution, much less unilaterally, except for the four
amendments approved by this Court, for which no further formality was
F required to be undertaken. The Administrator was obliged to conduct
elections on the basis of such amended Constitution in terms of the order
of this Court dated 4th December, 2017. No more and no less.
16. Appellants have rightly invited our attention to the decision of
the Constitution Bench of this Court in Smt. Damyanti Naranga Vs.
G The Union of India and Ors.4, which had approved the exposition in
G.K. Ghose and Anr. Vs. E.X. Joseph.5 In that case, this Court had
1
(1996) 4 SCC 622 (paragraph 19)
2
(2016) 9 SCC 44 (paragraphs 54, 55)
3
AIR 1925 Lahore 309
4
(1971) 1 SCC 678
5
H (1963) Supp. 3 SCR 789
MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION v. RAHUL 385
MEHRA AND ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
held that the right to form an Association was conditioned by the existence A
of the recognition of the said Association by the Government. In that
case the Court had held:
“It is not disputed that the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by
Article 19 can be claimed by Government servants. Article 33
which confers power on the Parliament to modify the rights in B
their application, to the Armed Forces, clearly brings out the fact
that all citizens, including Government servants, are entitled to
claim the rights guaranteed by Article 19. Thus, the validity of the
impugned rule has to be judged on the basis that the respondent
and his co-employees are entitled to form Associations or Unions.
It is clear that Rule 4-B imposes a restriction on this right. It C
virtually compels a Government servant to withdraw his
membership of the Service Association of Government servants
as soon as recognition accorded to the said Association is withdraw
or if, after the Association is formed, no recognition is accorded
to it within six months. In other words, the right to form an D
Association is conditioned by the existence of the recognition of
the said Association by the Government. If the Association obtains
the recognition and continues to enjoy it, Government servants
can become members of the said Association; if the Association
does not secure recognition from the Government or recognition
granted to it is withdrawn, Government servants must cease to be E
the members of the said Association. That is the plain effect of
the impugned rule.”
17. This dictum was quoted with approval by the Constitution
Bench to conclude that the right to form an Association included the
right to its continuance and any law altering the composition of the F
Association compulsorily will be a breach of the right to form the
Association. Thus understood, the steps taken by the Administrator
beyond the scope of the authority bestowed upon him in terms of the
order of this Court dated 4th December, 2017, cannot be validated by the
Court but must be treated as non est in law. It would have been a different G
matter if the Administrator had presented the additional amendments
before this Court and invited this Court to approve the same after hearing
the concerned parties.
18. Be that as it may, the question as to whether the amendments
incorporated by the Administrator are justified and proper or, so to speak, H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.
A essential as per the exposition of this Court in Board of Control for
Cricket Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors.6, need not detain
us. For, the further amendments to the Constitution could be effected
only in the manner provided by the Constitution of the AAI including in
terms of the order dated 4th December, 2017. It is thus not necessary
for us to examine as to whether, in fact, there is any deviation or not
B
from the dispensation predicated in the National Sports Code, as
contended by the respondents and the counsel appearing for the
Administrator.
19. For the time being, without any hesitation, we are of the
considered opinion that all steps taken by the Administrator, including
C the elections conducted by him on the basis of the Constitution (as amended
by him), will have to be treated as null and void and non est in law. The
parties will have to be relegated to the position as on 4th December,
2017, consequent to incorporation of the four amendments approved in
terms of the same order. After carrying out those four amendments in
D the Constitution, the election will have to be conducted to constitute the
new body, which would then take steps to introduce further amendments
to the Constitution, if so required, to bring it in line with the National
Sports Code, after giving an opportunity to all concerned. Only after the
amendments are accepted and approved, fresh elections be conducted
for constituting a new body in conformity with such duly amended
E Constitution.
20. In reference to certain apprehensions expressed by the
respondents due to reactions of the World Archery body, we must observe
that the controversy cannot be adjudicated on the basis of perception of
the World Archery body. Similarly, we do not wish to expand the scope
F of the present proceedings as the main writ petition is still pending before
the High Court of Delhi, where all issues can be deliberated and answered
appropriately. While doing so, the High Court, no doubt, would be guided
by the exposition in Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India and Ors.7, K.
Murugan Vs. Fencing Association of India, Jabalpur and Ors.8,
G and Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of
Bihar and Ors,9 on which reliance has been placed by the counsel
representing the newly elected body of AAI and the respondents, for
6
(2016) 8 SCC 535
7
(1988) 4 SCC 226 (para 1)
8
(1991) 2 SCC 412 (para 12)
9
H (2015) 3 SCC 251 (para 100-103)
MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION v. RAHUL 387
MEHRA AND ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
issuing appropriate directions in a public interest litigation. In other words, A
the High Court will examine all aspects of the matter on their own merits
in accordance with law.
21. We make it clear that the High Court may also consider the
stand taken by the appellant(s) and Union of India that the decision of
this Court in Board of Control for Cricket (supra)10 will be of no avail B
to the present case, because the National Sports Code takes within its
fold fifty-two disciplines of sports and Cricket is not one of the scheduled
sports. In other words, the dispensation to be followed must be in
conformity with the National Sports Code in so far as AAI is concerned.
We keep this issue open to be considered at the appropriate stage.
C
22. In view of the above, we dispose of these appeals and all the
applications on the following basis:
(I) We declare that the Constitution of AAI is amended only to
the extent of four amendments referred to in the order dated
4th December, 2017, treating it as amended by an order of D
this Court, without requiring to comply with any other
formality. Rest of the amendments are declared as null and
void and non est in law. The same, at best, may be pursued
as a proposal to be considered after the newly elected body
initiates a procedure for carrying out further amendments to
the Constitution of AAI as per law. E
(II) We further declare that all steps taken by the Administrator
on the basis of the Administrator’s Constitution, including
the elections conducted on 22nd December, 2018, are null
and void and non est in law.
F
(III) All concerned parties are relegated to the position as it stood
after the incorporation of the four amendments referred to
in the order dated 4th December, 2017. Further, the High
Court-appointed Administrator stands relieved in terms of
this order. The elected body, in office, would continue to
function hereafter as a Committee of Administrators appointed G
in terms of this order. We deem it appropriate to allow this
Committee to continue in office as nothing adverse has been
brought to our notice for their continuation until the newly
elected body takes over. However, the Committee shal
10
(2016) 8 SCC 535 H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.
A discharge only routine and day-to-day activities and shall not
take any policy decision or create new financial liability, until
the newly elected body takes over.
(IV) The election for constituting the new elected body be
completed by the aforementioned Committee appointed by
B this Court within four weeks from today and the election
process must be conducted strictly in accordance with the
Constitution as amended in terms of order dated 4 th
December, 2017.
(V) The newly elected body, after taking over the office, shall
C move a proposal for further amendment of the Constitution
to bring it in line with the National Sports Code and that
process be taken to its logical end expeditiously.
(VI) Any issue arising from such amendment may be raised before
the High Court where the main matter i.e. Writ Petition
D (Civil) No.195/2010 is pending. That writ petition be decided
on its own merits and in accordance with law.
(VII) The Committee shall submit a compliance report before the
High Court immediately after the newly elected body takes
over the office but not later than six weeks from today. Issues
E concerning the said report may also be considered by the
High Court on their own merits in accordance with law.
23. The appeals are allowed in the aforementioned terms. All the
applications are disposed of.
24. While parting, we place on record our word of appreciation
F for the services rendered by the High Court appointed Administrator
Mr. S.Y. Quraishi. We also appreciate the sincere effort of respondent
No.1 for the cause of sports and for introducing reforms in the functioning
of the apex body (AAI).
G
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals allowed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Sports association governance"Sign in to search