Supreme Court Slams Indian Sports Bodies: “Nothing Like Sports in Them, Just Ailing Bodies”

The Supreme Court Today (March 17) criticized Indian sports associations, calling them “ailing bodies” with no real focus on sports. This remark came during a case involving the Maharashtra Wrestling Association’s challenge against its de-affiliation by WFI.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Supreme Court Slams Indian Sports Bodies: "Nothing Like Sports in Them, Just Ailing Bodies"

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, on Monday, made an important remark about sports associations in the country, saying that they are struggling organizations.

During the hearing of a case related to the Maharashtra Wrestling Association, a Bench consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh made this observation.

The Court stated,

“All these sports associations, there is nothing like sports in them. All are ailing bodies, we do not know they are grappling for what.”

This statement comes at a time when several cases concerning the management and functioning of different sports bodies are being heard in both the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

The Maharashtra Wrestling Association had approached the Supreme Court to challenge a judgment by the Bombay High Court. The High Court had dismissed the association’s petition, which was filed against its de-affiliation by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI).

Earlier, a single-judge Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that the plea was not maintainable. However, the High Court allowed the association to approach the appropriate legal forum for its grievances.

Supreme Court Slams Indian Sports Bodies: "Nothing Like Sports in Them, Just Ailing Bodies"

On January 15, the Supreme Court had issued a notice to the Union of India and other concerned parties in response to the Maharashtra Wrestling Association’s petition challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision.

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, no lawyer appeared to represent the petitioner, leading to the case being postponed.

Meanwhile, the lawyer representing the respondents argued that the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court directly without first using the appellate remedy available in the High Court.

Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna

author

Vaibhav Ojha

ADVOCATE | LLM | BBA.LLB | SENIOR LEGAL EDITOR @ LAW CHAKRA

Similar Posts