1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO.            OF  2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Diary No.29577/2017)

Maharashtra Archery Association      …..Appellant(s)   :Versus:

Rahul Mehra and Ors.      ....Respondent(s) WITH

CIVIL  APPEAL NO.                   OF  2019

(Arising out of SLP(C) Diary No.28788/2017)   

CIVIL  APPEAL NO.                  OF  2019

(Arising out of SLP(C) Diary No.29202/2017)

J U D G M E N T

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 of 2010, raising issues of transparency

in governance and functioning of the Archery Association of

2

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 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 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 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  and administration

3

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 Administrator­cum­Returning Officer for discharge of the following functions:  (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; (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 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. (iv)  The AAI 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 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 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 Administrator’s assignment at a later date.  23.  The application is disposed off in the above terms.”

4

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] 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 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, 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

5

whence, after hearing the parties, the Court proceeded to pass

the following order:

“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 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  an NSF shall  be conducted  in accordance with the Model Election Bye­laws 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  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.  

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 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 per Para 3.10 and Para 3.19 of Annexure­II of the Code. But no such stipulation is found in the eligibility conditions for affiliation of State Associations as members of the AAI.

6

 iv. The Constitution of AAI also makes a provision that up to three persons may be bestowed the title of Honorary Life President of AAI, without voting rights, in recognition of the 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 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 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 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, respondent­in­person. But the filing of the 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 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. If he has any reservation, he is at liberty to move this Court.  List after eight weeks.”  

(emphasis supplied)

7

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 hope that the directions given therein would be

complied with within the time­frame 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 11th  December, 2017, being

I.A. No.135882 of 2017 and placed on record the final

amended Constitution 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 13th  September, 2018, seeking

directions to hold elections as per the Court approved

Constitution.

8

5. The Administrator, Mr. S.Y. Quraishi, appointed by the

High 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 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 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

9

Administrator’s  Constitution was  not  even circulated to the

constituent members until it came to be filed in this Court.  

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 e­mail to the members ­  State Association(s)

along with a notice for election for the office bearers of AAI to

be conducted by the 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 of the AAI which was

de­recognised on 17th  December, 2012. That application was

moved  for passing suitable  directions by  this  Court  on 19th

10

November, 2018,   when the Court, after hearing the parties,

passed the following order:  

“Since  the election programme has already commenced  in terms 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 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 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.  

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

11

No.24274/2018 on 8th  February, 2019, objecting to the

Administrator’s Constitution being  in violation of  the Sports

Code and the Constitution of 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 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 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.

12

10. During the course of  hearing of these matters,  before

closing  the matter for judgment, the  Court  called upon the

Administrator, appointed 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

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 appearing­in­person.

12. The core  issue to be answered  in these proceedings  is

about 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

13

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 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, 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 without any prior notice

to  all the  stakeholders  and due deliberations with them as

mandated by the  Constitution of the  AAI. In any case,  any

further amendments to the Constitution could be incorporated

14

only after taking prior permission of this Court which was still

in seisen of the matter. The Administrator was also ill­advised

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.  

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

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 deviation, the

Administrator was obliged to seek clarification and appropriate

15

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 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.   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 and  non est.

16

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 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 4th  December, 2017. To buttress this submission,

reliance has been placed on  Delhi Development Authority

Vs. Skipper  Construction  Co. (P) Ltd. and  Anr.1,  Anita

International Vs. Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor

Sangh and Ors.2,  and  Bihari  Lal  Vs.  Shankar Das and

Ors.3  

1   (1996) 4 SCC 622 (paragraph  19) 2  (2016) 9 SCC  44 (paragraphs 54, 55) 3  AIR  1925 Lahore 309

17

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  by this  Court  vide  order  dated  4 th

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  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 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

18

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 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. 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 held that the

right to form an Association was conditioned by the existence

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 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

4  (1971) 1 SCC 678 5  (1963) Supp. 3 SCR 789

19

judged on the basis that the respondent and his co­ employees are entitled to form Associations or Unions. It is clear  that  Rule 4­B  imposes a restriction on this  right. It 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 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 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 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 matter if the Administrator had

presented the additional amendments before this Court and

20

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, 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 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 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 6  (2016) 8 SCC 535

21

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 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 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 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

22

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,  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 issuing

appropriate directions in a public interest litigation. In other

words, 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 to the present case, because the

National Sports Code takes  within its fold  fifty­two 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

7  (1988) 4 SCC 226 (para 1) 8  (1991) 2 SCC 412 (para 12) 9  (2015) 3 SCC 251 (para 100­103)

10  (2016) 8 SCC  535

23

concerned. We keep this issue open to be considered at the

appropriate stage.   

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 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.    (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.  (III)   All concerned parties are relegated to the position as it

stood after the incorporation of the  four amendments

24

referred to in the order dated 4th  December, 2017.

Further, the High Court­appointed Administrator

stands relieved in terms of this order. The elected body,

in office, would continue to function hereafter as a

Committee of Administrators appointed 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

shall  discharge  only routine  and  day­to­day  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 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 4th December, 2017.

25

(V) The newly elected body, after taking over the office,

shall  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 (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 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 for the services rendered by the High Court

appointed Administrator Mr. S.Y. Quraishi. We also appreciate

26

the sincere effort of respondent No.1 for the cause of sports

and for introducing reforms in the functioning  of the  apex

body (AAI).  

…………………………..….J.           (A.M. Khanwilkar)

…………………………..….J.        (Ajay Rastogi)

New Delhi; May 01, 2019.