Prompted by ITF letter, Delhi HC orders holding AITA elections "expeditiously"

Pune: Citing “expediency” brought on by a letter from the International Tennis federation (ITF), the Delhi High Court has directed the Administrator of the All India Tennis Association (AITA) to proceed with the drafting of the latter’s by-laws and constitution in sync with the National Sports Act, 2025, and hold elections on or before September 30.In its interim order dated June 18, the HC set a series of timelines for the interim executive committee (IC) of the AITA and the state associations to call for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) by July 31 to deliberate and ratify the amended constitution prepared by the Administrator, and subsequently hold elections.

The bench, which was hearing an appeal by the IC and counter-appeal by two former players, Somdev Devvarman and Purav Raja, against the court’s order dated April 27, observed that the “substantial questions” raised by the two parties “require consideration” and would be dealt with in due course.“However, having regard to the letter dated 18.05.2026 addressed by the ITF to the Ministry (of Sports and Youth Affairs),” the court said, “it is considered expedient and in the interest of justice that the amendments to the Constitution/Bye-Laws (sic) of the AITA be undertaken expeditiously”.The details of the letter from the ITF emerged from the government’s affidavit, wherein the world governing body clarified “its position on the AITA” and the HC order of April 27, which appointed the Administrator (Retired Justice Gita Mittal, former chief justice of J&K High Court) and ordered the IC to work under her supervision.

“The ITF acknowledged that the AITA Executive Committee had been recognised on an interim basis and the AITA Constitution/Bye-Laws were required to be amended in conformity with the Sports Act and Sports Governance Rules by 30.06.2026, followed by an AGM within three months of such amendments."The ITF also noted the appointment of the learned Administrator, and indicated that, should the learned Administrator continue beyond the times stipulated in the Impugned Judgment, it may consider action under its regulatory framework, including review of the AITA’s membership status,” the Court’s order quoted from the ministry’s affidavit.As such, the Court directed the warring parties to arrive at an “amicable and workable arrangement”. It observed that the amendment of the constitution and holding elections would be “without prejudice to (their) right and contentions”, and above all, subject to final order in the case.It adjourned the hearing for August 14.

CASE HISTORY

The developments arise from a writ petition filed by Devvarman and Raja in September 2024, calling for then impending AITA elections to be stayed as those contesting were in breach of the prevailing National Sports Code, 2011, as well as the Rahul Mehra judgement of 2016, and that the federation had not taken steps to comply with the same.It also made the Union government party to the case, citing its failure to enforce the sports code on AITA.The single-judge bench hearing the case allowed the elections to go ahead but ordered the results to be not declared and submitted to the court in a sealed envelope. The previous set of office-bearers, whose term had ended by September and in some cases passed the age limit of 70 years, were allowed to continue to be in-charge until further adjudication.The April 27, 2026, order allowed the election results to be declared and the elected office-bearers to take charge but to function under the supervision of an Administrator.The order, however, did not deal with the illegality of the election, and that has given to rise to the latest dispute.

INTERIM COMMITTEE'S CONTENTIONS

In its appeal, the IC raised serious grievances against the appointment and continued supervision of the Administrator on multiple grounds.The IC said that the Impugned Judgement did not find any "illegality in the Constitution of the AITA or the AITA elections", which was the "core challenge in the writ petition". The appointment of an Administrator in such a scenario not only amounted to "judicial interference in the affairs of an autonomous society", but was also "ultra vires and unsupported" by any law.The IC argued that "the appointment of administrators in NSFs is viewed by international sporting bodies as third-party interference and has, in several cases, led to suspension or derecognition", and cited the derecognition of the AIFF by FIFA and the Supreme Court's staying the appointment of administrator in the IOA in recent times.In its final salvo, the IC submitted that unlike in the case of AIFF where the apex court drew its powers from Article 142 of the Constitution, the High Court was not empowered to "direct an AGM to vote in a particular manner".

THE PLAYERS' RIPOSTE

Devvarman and Raja submitted that their petition was not of mere academic interest and that the appointment of an Administrator was necessary since AITA had not amended its constitution since 2000.The players, pointing out multiple appeals filed during the course of the hearing by previous and would-be set of office-bearers claiming authority, said "factionalism" had impaired AITA's decision-making process, and therefore an Administrator "was necessary for amending the Constitution and restoring lawful governance".They impressed on the bench that legality had to be "tested against the law applicable" at that time, and that "material on record ...

showed that several elected members were liable to disqualified".More importantly, they submitted, that an Act of the Parliament which came into force in 2026 "could not validate an election allegedly illegal when conducted" in 2024.The players also referred to the AIFF case of 2017, wherein the Supreme Court "cautioned NSFs against creating conditions for derecognition by international bodies to resist court-appointed Administrators".