Today, On 28th February, The Delhi High Court quashed the Bihar Committee formed by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), citing legal inadequacies in its constitution. The court ruled that the committee was not formed in compliance with established legal procedures. This decision comes amid disputes over the governance of sports bodies in Bihar.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court set-aside an order issued by the President of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) to establish a five-member Ad Hoc committee to manage the Bihar Olympic Association.
The court noted that the order did not adhere to legal requirements and thus warranted cancellation.
Justice Sachin Datta stated in the ruling,
“I find that the impugned action by the President of the IOA in constituting an Ad-hoc Committee ‘to look after the affairs’ of the Bihar Olympic Association does not satisfy the requirements of law. The impugned order dated January 1, 2025, is consequently set aside.”
In its order, the court acknowledged the petitioner Bihar Olympic Association’s counsel’s statement that urgent measures would be taken to amend the association’s constitution to align with the IOA Constitution and the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011, and that elections for the Executive Committee would be conducted promptly.
The court directed,
“Let this be completed within three months from today; failing which, the IOA may take appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioner, including suspension or other measures as outlined in Article 6.1.5 and/or other provisions of the IOA Constitution.”
This directive came during the hearing of a petition filed by the Bihar Olympic Association, which challenged the IOA’s decision and sought the dissolution of the Ad Hoc Committee, particularly in light of the upcoming 38th National Games scheduled for January 28 to February 14.
A lawyer representing the Bihar Olympic Association argued that the IOA President does not possess the authority to unilaterally appoint a committee; such powers rest solely with the General Assembly.
In contrast, the IOA counsel contended that Article 15.1.4 does not apply in this situation, as the action taken against the petitioner is not deemed disciplinary under the IOA Constitution.
However, they asserted that the IOA President could form a committee under Article 17 in conjunction with Article 15.1.5, which could be ratified after its formation in accordance with Article 17.5 and Rule 15.1.5 of the IOA Constitution.