Delhi High Court
Rahul Mehra vs Union Of India And Ors. on 31 October, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on 31st October, 2017
+ WP (C) No. 195/2010
RAHUL MEHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, petitioner in
person.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Sh.
Naginder Benipal, Adv.
Sh. Anil Grover with Ms. Mishal Vij, Advs.
for SAI.
Sh. Hrishikesh with Sh. Hemant, Adv. for
Mr. P.V. Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Sh. Premtosh
Mishra, Ms. Yojna Goyal, Ms. Saloni
Aggarwal, Ms. Divyya Kapur, Ms. Pratibha
Sridhar, Sh. Sidhant Kapur, Sh. V.K. Nagrath
and Sh. Jitender Panchal, Advs. for AIFF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
CM 46919/ 2016 & CM 19815/2012
1. On 15.12.2016, this Court had stayed the election process of the All
India Football Federation (AIFF), of which the applicant seeks vacation and/or
modification. The order reads as under:
"CM No.5982/2012 in WP(C) 195/2010 ( Disposed off
application)
Issue notice. Mr. Anil Soni accepts notice for respondent
nos. 1 & 2. Issue notice to respondent nos. 3 to 13, returnable
on 20.01.2017. The petitioner urges that the elections to All
India Football Federation are prima facie in conflict with the
directions of this Court and relies upon the previous orders
dated 11.04.2012, 25.04.2012, 13.09.2012, 17.09.2012 and
18.12.2012. The last order i.e. order dated 18.12.2012 was in
respect of elections to the All India Football Federation. The
Court had suspended the election proceedings and in the other
order, the Court had directed that elections to the National
Sports Federations/Indian Olympic Association (IOA), as the
case may be, ought to be conducted not only as per the
applicable rules of the institution concerned, but also in
consonance with the National Sports Code of the Govt. of India
and the elections guidelines contained therein - both with
respect to conduct as well as eligibility conditions including
age, tenure and restrictions. In the circumstances, prima facie
we are of the opinion that the elections scheduled for
21.12.2016 to the All India Football Federation should be
stayed. It is hereby so directed. The All India Football
Federation - respondent No. 8, which is a party in these
proceedings - is hereby restrained from completing its election
scheduled for 21.12.2016. Union of India is hereby directed to
ensure that the elections to the Archery Association of India
(AAI) are conducted in consonance with the constitution of the
said institution, the National Sports Code and also in
conformity of the orders of this Court dated 17.09.2012 &
15.10.2012 in CM No. 5982/2012, especially paras 4 and 7 of
the order dated 15.10.2012. It is also directed that complaints
of the States/Union Territories/Institutions for inclusion of their
names in the Electoral College should also be resolved before
the date of the elections. The election process shall be
completed not later than 31.03.2017....."
2. Earlier, apropos a challenge to the election of the Archery Association
of India (AAI), this Court on 15.10.2012 had passed the following order:
"CM No.5982/2012 (of the petitioner for directions)
1. This application pertains to the Archery Association of India
(AAI). On 17.09.2012, it was informed that a General Council
Meeting of the AAI was scheduled to be held on 29.09.2012,
when the elections of the AAI were also to be held. Vide order of
the said date, it was directed that only if elections of AAI are
held in accordance with its Bye-laws / Memorandum / Rules as
well as the Sports Code of the Government of India, will the
Government of India accord recognition to the AAI and not
otherwise.
2. The petitioner today informs that the elections were not so
held on 29.09.2012. He has handed over in the Court a copy of
the letter dated 08.10.2012 of the AAI to the Presidents /
Secretaries of affiliated Regular State Associations / Units and to
the Executive Members of the AAI laying down the schedule of
the elections now proposed to be held on 28.10.2012. He further
states that though Justice J.D. Kapoor (Retd.) has been
appointed by the AAI as the Returning Officer for the elections
but the elections as proposed to be held are in contravention of
the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011. The
following contraventions have been pointed out:
(a) that as per the letter dated 08.10.2012 supra, the nominations
are to be submitted either in person or through registered post in
a sealed envelope though addressed to the Returning Officer but
at the address of Sh. Vijay Kumar Malhotra, the present
President of the AAI. It is argued that since Sh. Vijay Kumar
Malhotra is also one of the contestants in the proposed elections,
the submission of nominations at his address is improper;
(b) that there is no certainty of the Electoral College and the
same is being tampered with. Attention in this regard is invited
to the list of affiliated Units of the AAI as on 01.04.2008 and as
earlier appeared on the website of the AAI and which included
Himachal Pradesh Archery Association (HPAA) and
Uttarakhand Archery Association (UAA). Attention is next
invited to the list of affiliated Units as on 01.04.2008 as now
appearing on the website of the AAI and from which list, the
aforesaid HPAA and UAA are missing. It is contended that the
persons who have been in the management and control of the
AAI for decades, have attempted to remove the said two
Associations from the Electoral College apprehending that they
will not vote in favour of the said persons. Similarly, it is
contended that the Associations of the State of Mizoram, Tripura
and Arunachal Pradesh have been removed from the Electoral
College. Correspondence in this regard with the Arunachal CM
No. 10461/2017 in Pradesh Archery Association is also handed
over. Copy of the letters written by the Archery Association of
Assam expressing doubts as to the fairness of the elections
proposed to be held are also handed over;
(c) that the letter dated 08.10.2012 does not prescribe that the
elections will be held by secret ballot;
(d) that the Forms of nomination and withdrawal of nomination
prescribed are different from the Model Forms prescribed in the
Code aforesaid; and
(e) that no time for campaigning has been given, again with a
view to not allow any other person to contest the elections.
3. We find that Clause 4(4) of the Model Election Guidelines to
be followed by all National Sports Federations (as AAI is)
contained in the Code, require each Member State / Union
Territory to intimate the names of their representatives by a
specified date and Clause 4(5) requires the National Sports
Federation to prepare a list of such Authorized Representatives
and circulate a copy of the said list to all member States / Union
Territories / Boards / Institutions by display on the website.
Clause 4(6) requires the President / Secretary General of the
Federation to furnish the said list immediately to the Returning
Officer also. A perusal of the letter dated 08.10.2012 shows that
the date of 15.10.2012 has been prescribed for receipt of names
of representatives from member Associations / Units and of
16.10.2012 has been prescribed for finalization and delivery of
authorized list of Representatives to the Returning Officer. No
date for circulating the list of Authorized Representatives of the
member States / Union Territories / Board / Institutions to all
member States / Union Territories / Board / Institutions or for
publication on the website has been prescribed. Rather, the
dates of 18.10.2012 to 22.10.2012 immediately thereafter have
been prescribed for submission of nomination forms. Upon the
same being brought to the attention of the senior counsel for the
AAI, he states that even though no date for such circulation in
compliance with Clause 4(4) to 4(6) has been prescribed but in
compliance therewith, upon finalization of the list on 16.10.2012,
it shall be put up on the website. We are however of the opinion
that the very purpose of so displaying the list on the website
and/or circulating it, is to enable the persons if any aggrieved
from the said list to make representations. The schedule of the
proposed elections as fixed in the letter dated 08.10.2012 does
not leave scope for any objections to be preferred to the list to be
so circulated.
4. Mr. Mehra has in this regard also drawn our attention to the
letter dated 01.11.2011 of the Government of India to the
Gymnastic Federation of India regarding its elections and which
letter is to be read as part of the Code, prescribing the stages of:
issuance of notice for election and inviting the names of
representatives from state Units to form Electoral College;
publication of Electoral College;
appointment of Returning Officer;
Returning Officer to call nominations;
Screening of nominations by Returning Officer;
Publication of valid nominations also indicating the details of
invalid nominations by the Returning Officer;
Time for withdrawal of nominations;
Publication of final list of candidates by Returning Officer;
Adequate time for canvassing;
Holding of elections by secret ballot by the Returning Officer;
and
Announcement of election results by the Returning Officer
with reasonable time gaps, in the election process.
He has contended that the election process, as prescribed in the
Code, is to be in the aforesaid manner; the process prescribed in
the letter dated 08.10.2012 is thus not as per the Code and
leaves scope for mischief.
5. Attention is also invited to the letter dated 24.12.2009 of the
Government Observer for elections to Hockey India, 2010, also
requiring publication of the list of contestants drawn after
scrutiny, for information of all contestants and Electoral College
members and further prescribing election by secret ballot.
6. Reference in this regard is also made to the judgment dated
04.01.2012 in W.P.(C) No.4860/2011 titled Haryana Wrestling
Association Vs. Wrestling Federation of India of a Single Judge
of this Court, also holding the elections to have been not held
fairly on account of tight time schedule fixed for conduct of the
elections.
7. The Model Guidelines supra in the Sports Code, vide Clause
6(4) require the nominations to be personally delivered to the
Returning Officer in person by the candidate himself / herself.
The procedure prescribed in the letter dated 08.10.2012 of the
AAI, of filing of nominations in person or through registered post
at the address of the President of the AAI is thus not in
accordance with the Sports Code.
8. Faced with the same, the senior counsel for the AAI states that
the necessary modifications shall be issued.
9. The nomination forms as prescribed in the letter dated
08.10.2012 are indeed not as per the Model Forms prescribed in
the Guidelines aforesaid. The same require the nomination paper
to prescribe the „serial number in the Electoral College‟ and
which column is missing from the nomination form prescribed by
the AAI. Mr. Mehra contends that it has been so deleted since the
Electoral College is being manipulated. The same is the position
vis-a-vis the withdrawal form.
10. This Court has already on 17.09.2012 directed the Elections
to be held as per the Sports Code. Variations in the election
process initiated by the AAI from the Sports Code having been
noticed, it is deemed expedient to direct fresh steps for holding of
the elections to be taken and strictly in accordance with the
Sports Code and rectifying the defects hereinabove noted.
11. Since Justice J.D. Kapoor (Retd.) is informed to be appointed
as Returning Officer, we request the Returning Officer to look
into all the aforesaid aspects and the other requirements as per
the Code and to lay down the fresh schedule for conduct of the
elections, rectifying the aforesaid defects and strictly in
accordance with the Code. The complaints of the States / Union
Territories / Institutions for inclusion in the Electoral College be
also resolved before the same. However the election process be
completed as soon as possible.
12. AAI to immediately furnish copy of this order to the
Returning Officer for compliance.
13. With the aforesaid directions, the application is disposed
of...." (Emphasis supplied)
3. The applicant contends that once initiated, the election process should
not be stayed and that the order of 15.12.2016 was passed in the absence of its
counsel. The applicant is a registered Society, governed by its constitution
which provides a detailed mechanism for conducting its elections and the
applicant is required to adhere to the same; that in compliance of this Court's
order dated 18.12.2012 the election process was initiated on 17.11.2016
according to the Society's Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations, as well as the
National Sports Code. It is contended that the election was to be held on
21.12.2016 in its Annual General Meeting; that a retired Judge of a High Court
had been appointed as the Returning Officer on 25.11.2016, on which date the
Electoral Roll of the applicant Society had been furnished to him; the agenda
of Annual General Meeting was sent to the Society's members on 5th
December, 2016. On 24.11.2016 the Secretary General, Indian Olympic
Association (IOA)/ had appointed Observers for the AGM. On 17.12.2016
nominations of the candidates were duly scrutinized by the Returning Officer
and a list of candidates with valid nominations were prepared. The date for
filing valid nominations was 10.12.2016. The applicant further submits that in
consonance with the guidelines of the Sports Code, candidates whose
nominations were equal to the number of posts required to be filled in the
elections, were deemed to be elected unopposed; that the National Sports Code
and the rules and regulations of the applicant are not incongruous in particular,
Clause 9 of the Model Election Guidelines. On 11.12.2016, the list of
candidates for the various posts was circulated with the intimation that the
formal announcement for the successful (elected) candidates will be made in
the agenda of the meeting proposed to be held on 21.12.2016.
4. The applicant submits that on 18.12.2012, this Court had directed the
AIFF to follow Bye-Laws, Rules and Regulations and the Sports Code by
holding elections due on 20th December 2016; that the elections were duly held
and the Government of India has recognized the same as valid as per the AIFF
constitution as well as the Sports Code and accordingly granted recognition to
the aforesaid elected body. The applicant contends that the current elections
also are being held under the same rules and in compliance with the Sports
Code, in particular, under Article 25 of its Constitution; that its President and
Treasurer are eligible to hold the posts for a maximum of 3 and 2 four year
terms, respectively. Since the tenure of the previous office bearers was to
expire on 19.12.2016, by a notice dated 20.11.2016, the process of election
was scheduled for 21.12.2016. However, on 20.12.2016, this Court as an
interim measure had modified the order on 15 th December, 2016 to the extent
that the election could proceed but its result could be subject to the final
outcome of the application CM No. 19815/2015.
5. The applicant urges that it has a responsibility of popularizing and
promoting the sport of football in India and for organizing its own domestic
and international competitions; that under Article 14 of its constitution, it has
to comply with the Statutes, Regulations, Directions and Decisions of the
Federation of International Football Association (FIFA), the international
organization which governs international football competitions and with which
the applicant is affiliated. It also contends that under Article 27 of FIFA's
constitution, the mechanism prescribed for election for its President and other
office bearers is that a prospective candidate is required to have the support of
at least five member associations. In other words, a candidature for election
would be valid only if it had the support of or is proposed by five member
associations with the condition that each member association could support
only one candidate. It is argued that likewise, for the election of the
applicant's own Executive Committee and its President, Vice President and
Treasurer, a prospective candidate is required to have at least five Permanent
and/or Associate Members as its proposers. According to the applicant, a
Permanent and/or Associate Member can propose the name of only one
candidate for the post of President; and only one candidate from each Zone for
the post of Vice President; and only two candidates from each Zone as
Members of the Executive Committee.
6. It is argued that the National Sports Code itself requires the applicant to
be affiliated with FIFA. However, for the continued affiliation with the latter,
compliance with the Rules of FIFA is essential. The applicant further submits
that National Sports Code itself acknowledges and recognises that the National
Sports Federations are fully responsible and accountable for the overall
management, direction, control, regulation, promotion and development, and
sponsorship of the discipline of sports for which they are recognised by the
International Federation concerned. Therefore, there is an expectation of the
AIFF to adopt such practices as would ensure its continued affiliation with the
FIFA. The applicant further submits that rule of One State - One Member -
One Vote, as followed by the AIFF is an universally valid practice and indeed,
has found favour in the matter of Board of Control for Cricket vs. Cricket
Association of Bihar & Ors 2016 (8) SCC 535
7. The writ petitioner, Mr. Mehra refuted the applicant/association's
submissions and argued that the elections were in clear violation of the
National Sports Code, the adherence to which is necessary for the said AIFF to
be recognised by the Government of India. He contends that the National
Sports Code 2011 as well as the Model Election Guidelines stipulated under it,
are to be mandatorily followed by the IOA and all National Sports Federations
(NSFs) to enjoy various facilities and concessions and/or to receive financial
and other assistance from the Government of India. This assistance is in the
form of grant of use of large stadia and facilities at nominal lease/rent, income
and entertainment tax exemptions, customs/duty exemption, railway
concession, admissions to schools and colleges and grant of government jobs
under the sports quota, grant of import license on restricted items and to derive
the authority to perform the public functions of selecting and deputing the
national teams for participation in recognized international sport competitions,
which involve representation of member countries, and to represent the
country in international associations, events, meets, conferences, etc.
Therefore, to enjoy the aforesaid benefits and privileges at the national level,
the NSF would have to comply with the stipulations mandated in the Sports
Code. In particular, the petitioner relies on Clause 5.1 (c) (iii) which stipulates
that in case of failure to comply with the Sports Code, the aforesaid facilities,
concessions, financial assistance and others provided by the government of
India would not be available to a sports federation. Relying upon Clause 8 of
the Sports Code read with its Annexures II and XV, the petitioner contends
that recognition of an NSF is for four years or for the elected term of the sports
body. Instead, the affiliation has to be renewed annually so that the
Government can monitor that the Sports Federation continues to observe and
comply with the eligibility criteria as laid down under Clause 9.3 (xiii). These
criteria include the limit of tenure and age of office bearers of the NSFs as
notified in Annexure XIII notified on 01.05.2010, inclusion of sportspersons
(say 25%) and (iii) holding elections of their office bearers as per Model
Election Guidelines, etc.
8. The petitioner further submits that the National Sports Code has already
received judicial imprimatur by an order of this Court on 09.05.2014 in WP
(C) 2310 of 2012 viz. Indian Olympic Association vs. UOI where it was held
inter alia that the maximum tenure for the posts of President and Vice
President and the Secretary and Treasurer is 12 years. Such elected persons
can serve for a maximum of two successful terms of four years each after
which the minimum cooling period of four years would apply before fresh
election can be sought by the candidate. The aforesaid three office bearers -
viz. President, Secretary and Treasurer shall cease to hold that post upon
attaining the age of 70 years. In the aforesaid order the Court further
observed:
"the other provisions in respect of the tenure limit as
contained in the letter of 1975 mentioned above shall
as it is. The above dispensation will come into
operation with immediate effect. This regulation
(subject to any subsequent amendments) should, till
appropriate legislation is framed by Parliament, bind
the parties and all NSFs as a condition for recognition,
aid and crucially, for the use of the term "India" by
any team in International Olympic sporting event"
9. The petitioner contends that on 17th November, 2016, all permanent and
associate members of the All India Football Federation were intimated that the
Annual General Body Meeting of the AIFF will be held on 21.12.2016 at New
Delhi. Nomination forms would be available from the Returning Officer,
whose name was intimated a week later on 25th November. List of electoral
college along with the details of the Returning Officer i.e. his address was
mentioned. However, his landline telephone number was intimated through
email on 30.11.2016. Effectively, prospective candidates for the elections
could have initiated contact with the Returning Officer by post only after
receipt of information on 25th November and through telephone only after
30.11.2016. The petitioner argues that there has been a failure on part of the
AIFF by not adhering to the Sports Code on various counts including (i) each
member associate of a NSF can nominate two delegates and cast two votes
whereas in the AIFF's electoral process, each of its member association can
send only one delegate and has to cast only one vote (Clause 4); (ii) as per
Clause 6(2) of the Model Election Guidelines of the Sports Code (Annexure
XXXVII), each candidate for election as officer bearer or a member of the
Managing Committee has to be proposed by one of the representative of the
member association and seconded by one such representative, whereas, in the
AIFF's electoral process, each candidate for the post of President, Vice-
President, Treasurer or Member of the Executive Committee has to be
proposed by at least 5 permanent and/or associate members as per Clause 25.3
of the AIFF's Constitution. The AIFF justifies the requirement of five
proposers to a candidate's nomination by relying on Article 27(1) of the FIFA
Constitution which, it contends is a necessity for its continued affiliation with
FIFA- the international sports body.
10. The applicant argues that its electoral contains 35 permanent associate
members. Five of such members can nominate prospective candidates. For
the post of one President, one Vice President and one Treasurer, there can be,
say seven candidates contesting. However, whether members chose to
nominate 7 candidates to contest either of the posts, would be the discretion of
each member and cannot be the subject matter of the writ petition. It is argued
that the election to the aforesaid three posts, though honorary and without
remuneration, places onerous responsibility of guiding and managing the
affairs of the sport of football throughout the country. The applicant further
submits that there is no default with respect to the representation of sports
persons with voting rights in the management of the NSF and while it is
endeavouring to increase their participation, it has already co-opted two
international players and a FIFA recognised Referee to its Executive
Committee. These three persons are Mr. Deepak Kumar, Mr. Deepak Sharma
as players and Mr. Deepak Chauhan as referee. The applicant argues that the
nomination of sports persons to the Executive Committee is done by the State
Associations; besides, the language of Clause 9.3 (XI) of the Sports Code
suggests that it is only directory in nature and not mandatory apropos elections
of such sports persons to the executive committee.
11. The aforesaid clause shows that it is applicable only for elections of the
President of FIFA and not for the election of the office bearers and the
Executive Committee of the AIFF. It does not direct the FIFA member
association to necessarily follow the same rule. Perhaps for a scheme of its
international affairs, FIFA considered it prudent to have at least a minimum of
5 member associations to nominate apropos candidature for the post of
President FIFA. This was deemed perhaps all the more necessary since the
election to the international body would be on the basis of votes from National
Sports Bodies so as to lend some gravitas to serious candidature. However,
there has not been any such compulsion on the AIFF to follow the same
pattern of nomination by five members for the election of office bearers to the
AIFF, the same is really restrictive and undemocratic. Furthermore, so far as
the Sports Code requires one proposer and one seconder for each nomination,
this principle would have to be implemented and anything in derogation
thereto would have to be disregarded. A robust and more egalitarian
participation in the elections would not only be in keeping with the ethos of a
sports promotion body but could also lead to good governance in accordance
with best international practices. It would also be fair that the prospective
candidates declare their age as on the date of the election so as to obviate any
doubt about their tenure should they be elected. The Sports Code recognises
minimum age of an office bearer to be 70 years; such minimum term of an
elected officer bearer which includes President, Secretary and Treasurer of a
National Sports Federation. As regards the electoral college, the petitioner
states that the same was not properly prepared because complaints have been
lodged with the Returning Officer by the Goa Football Association, Delhi
Soccer Association, Haryana Football Association, Telengana Football
Association and Uttar Pradesh Football Sangh, etc.
12. By an order dated 17.11.2016, the office of Registrar of Societies had
directed that the elections to the said society (Delhi Soccer Association) which
was overdue since May, 2015 be concluded within 25 days from the date of
receipt of that letter. It requested the AIFF to direct DSA to conduct the
elections before the AIFF elections, pending which the DSA would not be
properly represented nor would it be able to participate in the AIFF elections
scheduled to be held on 25.12.2016. Likewise, the AP Football Association
had expressed its concerns and constraints with respect to the existing affairs
of the game of football especially after the division of Andhra Pradesh into the
two States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Its President rued the fact that
the affairs of the sport of football were paralysed in the entire erstwhile
undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. Intriguingly, he requested that "Now, we
request you to consider one nomination for any suitable post in the Executive
Committee for Telangana State or Andhra Pradesh State."
13. In a similar vein, Mr. D.K Bose of the Hindustan Football Club, Delhi
had written a letter dated 30.11.2016 to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and
Sports, Government of India. Mr. Welvin Menezes, Hon. General Secretary,
Goa Football Association also wrote a letter dated 6.12.2016 complaining to
the "Returning Officer of AIFF Executive Committee Elections 2016" that
there was a breach of 30 days required notice in the receipt of electoral college
in consonance with Article 23.2. of AIFF Constitution. The Roll of the
Electoral College was sent on 23.11.2016 while the AGM was scheduled on
21.12.2016. Furthermore, the name and the contact details of the returning
office should have been intimated to all Member Associations at least 30 days
before the AGM. The same was intimated on 25 th November, 2016 and again
on 30th November, 2016 with an addition of the landline number. This land
line number provided was incorrect. This was done when the elections were to
be held 21 days later. It also alleged electoral malpractice and breach of good
governance and ethics on part of the Senior Vice President of AIFF, Mr.
Subrato Dutta insofar as he sent an email to all Member Associations giving a
list of the proposed Executive Committee members with various posts of
office bearers and members. Further, the letter mentioned that this was
followed by a related SMS referring to the earlier e-mail exhorting indeed,
instructing all members that they have to fill up the nomination forms in
accordance with the proposed executive committee mailed by Mr. Dutta. Mr.
Welvin Menezes, Hon. General Secretary, Goa Football Association further
wrote, " the above is a clear misuse of the position as Senior Vice President of
AIFF to manipulate the election process and influence the composition of the
Executive Committee"
14. The Goa Football Association (GFA) further drew the attention of the
Returning Officer to the breach in the electoral process i.e. requirement by the
applicant AIFF for five proposals for prospective candidates to the elections
instead of one as required under the National Sports Code as well as the
requirement of one delegate one vote. The GFA also referred to a few other
essential aspects of the sport of football in Goa such as (i) Goa has a vibrant
football culture; (ii) It is one of the two power houses of Indian football along
with West Bengal; (iii) it has 192 football clubs affiliated to it and has a four
tier senior league along with age group competitions from under - 14 to under
- 20; (iv) Goa is the only State in the country whose Government has declared
football as the State Sport. The petitioner Mr. Rahul Mehra, asseverates that
the letter dated 11.12.2016 issued by the AIFF to all member associations is
fait accompli insofar as President, Vice President and five office bearers
represent North, East, West, South and North-East and nine members of the
Executive Committee being elected in the posts unopposed. Their having been
aforesaid was merely formal to be announced by the R.O. on 21.12.2016. This
according to the petitioner was nothing but a falsity being perpetuated since
the elections were representative.
15. The petitioner contends that the elections need to be set aside and
otherwise not given effect to, because the Electoral College is not in
consonance with Rule 4 of the Model Code which provides the votes each
permanent member would have for the election of office bearers and the rest of
the Executive Committee. On 05.12.2016, the AIFF was requested to send the
list of the Electoral College so that prospective candidates could meet the
delegates/persons who would be casting the votes, but the same was not made
available till 13.12.2016; whereas the elections were due 9 days later on
21.12.2016. Furthermore, the name of delegates who would cast votes had
been changed and the Electoral College in terms of the letter dated 13.12.2016
was significantly different from that when the elections took place.
16. Mr. P.V. Kapur, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that
there is no basis to suggest that the nominees representing the voting members
are persons to whom the candidate should canvass, and the National Sports
Code does not say that it prevails upon international laws or rules of the FIFA.
17. We do not find the said argument tenable because by its order dated
9.5.2014 in WP (C) 2310 of 2012, this Court has already directed that the
National Sports Code shall be applicable till appropriate legislation is framed
by the Parliament and shall bind all the National Sports Federations as a
condition for benefit of national aid/grants and for use of the term "India" by
any team in international sports events.
18. The Court is also unable to agree with the applicant's contention because
till the votes are cast it would not be known as to in whose favour they would
be cast. Therefore, at least till the votes are cast the prospective candidates
should have the opportunity to canvass for their candidature to the members
nominated to vote as per the Electoral Roll. These nominees would ordinarily
be persons holding executive positions in their respective Executive
Committees, therefore, canvassing to them would be of some significance. The
purpose of democratic elections is that candidates contesting for different posts
should be able to do so freely and should be able to canvass with the electorate.
Opacity and confusion as to whom the canvassing should be done to cannot be
deemed to be fair practice in any election. Therefore, the change of the
Electoral Roll on the date of casting of votes vitiates the entire process since
the electorate had changed. In such circumstances, the votes cast on
21.12.2015 and results declared cannot be held to be valid.
19. Furthermore, the argument that a prospective candidate is necessarily
required to have five proposals in terms of the FIFA Constitution for a valid
nomination is untenable because the said clause applies only to elections to
FIFA and this condition is not mandated for elections to the respective National
Sports Member Associations' bodies. Clause 27(1) of the FIFA constitution
reads as under:
"Only the member associations may propose candidatures
for the office of FIFA President. A candidate for the office of
FIFA President shall only be valid if supported by a total of at
least five member associations. Member associations must notify
the FIFA general secretariat, in writing, of a candidature for the
FIFA presidency at least four months before the start of the
Congress, together with the declarations of support of at least
five member associations. A candidate for the office of FIFA
President shall have played an active role in association football
(e.g. as a player or an official within FIFA, a confederation or
an association, etc.) for two of the last five years before being
proposed as a candidate and must pass an eligibility check
carried out by the Review Committee in accordance with the
FIFA Governance Regulations."
20. Evidently, the said provision is apropos elections to the international
body and not for the national football association of a Member Association.
There is nothing on record to show that the same method of voting is essential
for the Member Associations of FIFA and the said clause is either mandatory
or applicable to the applicant. Hence, it will have to be disregarded, especially
since it is not in consonance with the National Sports Code.
21. The Court is of the view that: (i) in the absence of the list of the Electoral
College having been shared with the candidates; (ii) the requirement of five
voting members as per the schedule of the applicant Society; (iii) the non-
adherence to the format specified / mandated in the National Sports Code; (iv)
prevention of certain members from participating fully in the elections, in
particular - the Delhi Football Association, the elections cannot be held to be
valid in terms of the National Sports Code.
22. The Court is of the view that insofar as the Rules of the AIFF are in
breach of the National Sports Code and the Model Guidelines for the conduct
of elections, the results of the elections of the AIFF declared on 21.12.2016
would have to be set aside. It is so ordered. Fresh elections shall be conducted
in accordance with the Model Guidelines. Additionally, nominations would be
required to be proposed and seconded by one member association each and
with clear notice, as required by the Model Election Guidelines read with rules
of AIFF. Furthermore, the Electoral College shall be first prepared after
addressing the complaints of various members who may have grievances in
this regard. This exercise should be carried out by a person who has
experience in sports affairs, public administration and conduct of elections.
Accordingly, this Court directs 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 to be appointed as the
Administrator-cum-Returning Officer for the conduct of the elections of the
AIFF in the following manner:
(i) To resolve the issue of disaffiliation of members/units of AIFF as on 30th
November, 2016 and to prepare the Electoral List, within a month by giving
the concerned parties two weeks' notice;
(ii) Elections shall be held in six weeks after the preparation of the Electoral
college. This elected body shall carry out the requisite amendments to the AIFF
Constitution to bring it in conformity with the National Sports Code.
(iii) Once the AIFF Constitution has been amended, a fresh round of elections
shall be carried out in terms of the National Sports Code, to ensure that age and
tenure restrictions along with the provision for due representation of the sports-
persons are strictly complied with.
(iv) The AIFF shall make available to the Administrator an 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 by the
AIFF.
(v) Till the elections are conducted and results declared in consonance of the
National Sports Code and in compliance with the preceding directions, the
AIFF shall not make any new financial commitments except with the prior
approval of the Administrator. Routine expenses of AIFF too shall be defrayed,
only with the prior approval of the Administrator. The entire exercise will be
completed within five months from the date the Administrator assumes charge;
(vi) However, to obviate any impediment in the conduct of any competitive
tournament that may have been scheduled by the applicant, this order shall
come into effect after two weeks from today.
23. The applicant and the AIFF shall seek consent of Mr. S.Y. Quraishi, of his
acceptance of the aforementioned responsibility.
24. The Court would consider fixing an honorarium for the Administrator's
assignment at a later date.
25. The applications are disposed off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
OCTOBER 31, 2017/acm
