MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION versus RAHUL MEHRA AND ORS.

[2019] 7 S.C.R.

AMAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION

RAHUL MEHRA AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 4771 of 2019 etc.)

BMAY 01, 2019

[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]

Sports :

Archery Association of India (AAI) – Constitution of –CAmendment by Court appointed Administrator – Propriety of – Writpetition on the issue of governance and functioning of AAI – Highcourt by interim order appointed ‘Administrator’ for supervision ofthe affairs of Archery Association – Appeal to Supreme Courtchallenging the order appointing the Administrator – Supreme Courtby interim order dated 4.12.2017 directed the Association to amendDits Constitution and directed the Administrator to conduct electionswithin period of four weeks – Archery Association of India placedon record the amended Constitution in terms of the order dated4.12.2017 – The Administrator also filed compliance report togetherwith new Constitution as amended by him – Held: The AdministratorEhad carried out the amendments beyond what was permitted andapproved by Supreme Court in terms of order dated 4.12.2017 –The Administrator could have taken only such steps as were permittedby Supreme Court – Constitution could have been amended only inaccordance with law i.e. by the elected body after interacting withall the stakeholders and members – The Administrator had no powerFto amend the Constitution, much less unilaterally, except for thefour amendments approved by Supreme Court – Therefore, the stepstaken by the Administrator beyond the scope of the authoritybestowed upon him, must be treated as non est in law – All the stepstaken by the Administrator, including the elections conducted byGhim, on the basis of the Constitution amended by him, also has to betreated as null and void and non est in law.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The core issue to be answered in the presentproceedings is about the purport of the order passed by this CourtH

on 4[th] December, 2017. The background in which the said ordercame to be passed after hearing the parties, leaves no manner ofdoubt that it had modified the impugned order of the High Courtdated 10[th] August, 2017. Further, the contentious issues regardingthe proposed amendment in the Constitution stood answered tothat extent. In that, this Court passed peremptory order notonly for approving the proposed amendments, as noted in theorder dated 4[th] December, 2017, but also directed theAdministrator to conduct elections in consonance thereto withina period of four weeks, after incorporating the amendments withinone week from the date of the order. That was the limited mandategiven to the Administrator. Indeed, this Court had given libertyto the Administrator to seek clarification or directions if and whennecessary. That liberty, however, by no stretch of imaginationcould be mistaken as authorising the Administrator to carry outamendments in the Constitution beyond the four amendmentsreferred to in the order dated 4[th] December, 2017, much less todo so unilaterally without any prior notice to all the stakeholdersand due deliberations with them as mandated by the Constitutionof the Archery Association of India (AAI). In any case, any furtheramendments to the Constitution could be incorporated only aftertaking prior permission of this Court which was still in seisen ofthe matter. The Administrator was also ill-advised not to seekextension of time for completion of election process, which wasto be completed not later than five weeks from 4[th] December,2017. [Para 12] [382-E-H; 383-A-B]2. The Administrator, however, merely filed compliancereport on 24[th] September, 2018, in the Registry of this Courtwithout attempting even once to invite the attention of this Courtthereto. The Administrator has also filed further report in termsof the order dated 28[th] March, 2019. On perusal of the saidreports, it can be accepted that the steps taken by theAdministrator were under mistaken belief - that he had theauthority to proceed in the manner that he did and including toamend the Constitution beyond the four amendments referredto in the order dated 4[th] December, 2017. It is not case ofdefiance or disobedience of the Court’s order as such. [Para 13][383-E-F]

372SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A3. The Administrator could have taken only such steps aswere permitted by this Court vide order dated 4[th] December,2017, in their letter and spirit. Indisputably, the additionalamendments incorporated by the Administrator have resulted indenial of right to represent in and contest elections of the AAIfor the existing members. Even the direction given by the HighBCourt whilst appointing the Administrator vide the impugnedjudgment, in no way gave authority to the Administrator to amendthe Constitution, but was limited to conduct elections on the basisof 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 earnestCto amend the Constitution to bring it in line with the NationalSports Code on specified matters and then to conduct freshelections on the basis of such amended Constitution. Thus. theConstitution could be amended only in accordance with law, whichmeans by the elected body after interacting with all the

stakeholders and members. The Administrator had no power toDamend the Constitution, much less unilaterally, except for thefour amendments approved by this Court, for which no furtherformality was required to be undertaken. The Administrator wasobliged to conduct elections on the basis of such amendedConstitution in terms of the order of this Court dated 4[th]EDecember, 2017. No more and no less. [Para 15] [384-C-F]

4. The right to form an Association included the right to itscontinuance and any law altering the composition of theAssociation compulsorily will be breach of the right to form theAssociation. Thus understood, the steps taken by the

FAdministrator beyond the scope of the authority bestowed uponhim in terms of the order of this Court dated 4[th] December, 2017,cannot be validated by the Court but must be treated as non estin law. It would have been different matter if the Administratorhad presented the additional amendments before this Court and

invited this Court to approve the same after hearing theGconcerned parties. [Para 17] [385-F-G]

Smt. Damyanti Naranga v. The Union of India and Ors.(1971) 1 SCC 678 : [1971] 3 SCR 840 – followed.

G.K. Ghose and Anr. v. E.X. Joseph (1963) Supp. 3SCR 789 – relied on.H

5. The further amendments to the Constitution could beeffected only in the manner provided by the Constitution of theAAI including in terms of the order dated 4[th] December, 2017. Itis thus not necessary for the Court to examine as to whether, infact, there was any deviation or not from the dispensationpredicated in the National Sports Code. [Para 18] [386-A-B]

Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association ofBihar and Ors. (2016) 8SCC 535 : [2016] 8 SCR 606– held inapplicable.

6. All the steps taken by the Administrator, including theelections conducted by him on the basis of the Constitution (asamended by him), will have to be treated as null and void and nonest in law. The parties will have to be relegated to the position ason 4[th] December, 2017, consequent to incorporation of the fouramendments approved in terms of the same order. After carryingout those four amendments in the Constitution, the election willhave to be conducted to constitute the new body, which wouldthen take steps to introduce further amendments to theConstitution, if so required, to bring it in line with the NationalSports Code, after giving an opportunity to all concerned. Onlyafter the amendments are accepted and approved, fresh electionsbe conducted for constituting new body in conformity with suchduly amended Constitution. [Para 19] [386-C-E]

7. The controversy cannot be adjudicated on the basis ofperception of the World Archery body. Similarly, the scope of thepresent proceedings cannot be expanded as the main writ petitionis still pending before the High Court, where all issues can bedeliberated and answered appropriately. While doing so, the HighCourt, no doubt, would be guided by the exposition in *SheelaBarse case and **Board of Control for Cricket in India case.[Para 20] [386-F-G]

*Sheela Barse case v. Union of India and Ors. (1988)4 SCC 226 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 295 ; K. Muruganv. Fencing Association of India, Jabalpur and Ors.(1991) 2 SCC 412 : [2016] 6 SCR 635; **Board ofControl for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of

[2019] 7 S.C.R.

ABihar and Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 251 : [2015] 1 SCR 165– referred to.

8. The Constitution of AAI is amended only to the extentof four amendments referred to in the order dated 4[th] December,2017, treating it as amended by an order of this Court, withoutBrequiring to comply with any other formality. Rest of theamendments are declared as null and void and non est in law. The

same, at best, may be pursued as proposal to be consideredafter the newly elected body initiates procedure for carryingout further amendments to the Constitution of AAI as per law.[Para 22 (I)] [387-D-E]

9. All the steps taken by the Administrator on the basis ofthe Administrator’s Constitution, including the electionsconducted on 22[nd] December, 2018, are null and void and non estin law. The High Court-appointed Administrator stands relievedin terms of this order. The elected body, in office, would continueDto function hereafter as Committee of Administrators appointedin terms of this order. This Committee is allowed to continue inoffice as nothing adverse has been brought to the notice of theCourt for their continuation until the newly elected body takesover. However, the Committee shall discharge only routine andEday-to-day activities and shall not take any policy decision orcreate new financial liability, until the newly elected body takesover. [Paras 22 (II) and (III)] [387-E-H]

10. The election for constituting the new elected body becompleted by the aforementioned Committee appointed by thisFCourt within four weeks from today and the election process mustbe conducted strictly in accordance with the Constitution asamended in terms of order dated 4[th] December, 2017.[Para 22(IV)] [388-B]

Case Law Reference

[1963] Supp. 3 SCR 789relied onPara 16A[2016] 8 SCR 606held inapplicablePara 18[1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 295referred toPara 20[2016] 6 SCR 635referred toPara 20[2015] 1 SCR 165referred toPara 20B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4771of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2017 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in CM No. 10461 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 195 of2010.

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 4772, 4773 of 2019.

Shyam Divan, Sunil Gupta, Sr. Advs., Siddharth Dave, SahilTagotra, Ms. Neha Sangwan, Amit Agrawal, Sahil Raveen, Sugandha,Shushil Dutt Salwan, Nikunj Dayal, Pramod Dayal, Ms. Payal Dayal,Aditya Garg, Arjun Garg, Advs. for the Appellant.

K. M. Natrajan, ASG, Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv.,R. Balasubramanian, Ms. Durga Dutt, Prashant Singh, RajBahadur Yadav, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Pritam Bishwas, Ms. PragyaParijat Singh, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Ms. AishwaryaKane, Ms. Gayatri Verma, Hrishikesh Baruah, S. Lakshmi, HemantPhalpher, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Ms. Jaya Suri Phalpher, Parth Goswami,Hemant P., Ms. Radhika Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.

Mr.Rahul Mehra, Respondent-in-person.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent No.1 has filed public interest litigation beforethe High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, being Writ Petition (Civil) No.195of 2010, raising issues of transparency in governance and functioning ofthe Archery Association of India (for short the “AAI”). Several interimorders came to be passed in the said writ petition which are not relevantfor answering the controversy in the present proceedings. The presentspecial leave petitions emanate from the order dated 10[th] August, 2017

Apassed by the High Court in C.M. No.10461 of 2017 filed by respondentNo.1 (writ petitioner) inter alia for appointment of Administrator/Returning Officer including to conduct elections of AAI in compliancewith the High Court’s order dated 15[th] December, 2016, as well as stayof notice dated 2[nd] March, 2017 of the AAI, calling for an emergencymeeting of the General Council on 15[th] March, 2017 and, in theBalternative, to stay the outcome of such meeting if held, till the Courtappoints an Administrator/Returning Officer. The High Court afterhearing the parties passed the following order:

“20. In the circumstances, the Court deems it appropriate that theaffairs of the Archery Association of India (AAI) be brought underCthe supervision of an Administrator till its Constitution is amendedand elections are held in terms of this Court’s order dated15.12.2016. The Court also deems it appropriate that for thepresent, the affairs and elections of AAI be conducted by personof public eminence with significant experience in sports affairsDand administration and elections. We are of the opinion that Mr.S.Y. Quraishi, Former Chief Election Commissioner of India, whohas also served as Secretary in the Ministry of Youth Affairs andSports, Government of India would be suitable person to beappointed as the Administrator-cum-Returning Officer fordischarge of the following functions:

(i) To resolve the issue of disaffiliation of such members/units ofAAI as on 15.12.2016, within month from today by giving themtwo weeks’ notice and if their membership can be regularized interms of the ‘unamended’ Constitution, it shall be so regularized;

(ii) the Electoral College of the AAI shall be prepared and electionsshall be held in six weeks thereafter. This elected body shall carryout the amendments to the Constitution to bring it in conformitywith the National Sports Code.

(iii) Thereafter, fresh round of elections, shall be carried out asGper the amended Constitution and in terms of the National SportsCode, to ensure that age and tenure restrictions and duerepresentation of the sports persons are strictly complied with.The entire exercise shall be carried out within period of 4 monthsfrom today.

(iv) The AAI shall make available to the Administrator anappropriate office space and facilities for the discharge of theaforesaid directions and make available such staff and personnelas the Administrator may express the need for. Alternatively, theAdministrator may appoint such personnel to assist him in theaforesaid matter and expenses towards the same shall be borneby the AAI.

(v) Till the elections are conducted and results declared inconsonance of the National Sports Code and in compliance withthe preceding directions, the AAI shall not make any new financialcommitments except with the prior approval of the Administrator.Routine expenses of AAI too shall be defrayed, with the due priorapproval 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 theAdministrator’s assignment at later date.

23. The application is disposed off in the above terms.”

3. This decision is assailed by way of an appeal [arising out ofSLP(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 theappeal [arising out of SLP(C) Diary No.29202/2017] filed by KeralaState Archery Association (for short “KSAA”). When these specialleave petitions came up for hearing on 18[th] September, 2017, the Courtrecorded the submission of the appellant(s) that the constitution of AAIstood amended in accordance with the National Sports DevelopmentCode of India, 2011 (for short “the Sports Code”). The counsel appearingfor Union of India prayed for time to verify the said position. Later, thisCourt directed the Ministry of Sports to file an affidavit regardingcompliance, on or before 26[th] October, 2017. Eventually, the affidavit ofthe competent officer of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports,Government of India, came to be filed. It is not necessary for us to dilateon the contents of the said affidavit. For, the matters were heard on 4[th]December, 2017 whence, after hearing the parties, the Court proceededto pass the following order:

“Heard Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel and Mr. Salwan,learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Narasimha, learnedAdditional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. RahulMehra, respondent appearing in person. It is submitted by Mr.Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General that though certainamendments have been carried out in the constitution, yet theyare not in consonance with the National Sports Development Code,2011 (NSDCI) of the MYAS. In the affidavit filed by the Unionof India, certain deviations have been pointed out. They read asfollows :

‘i. The NSDCI provides that the election of office bearer ofan NSF shall be conducted in accordance with the ModelElection Bye-laws of the NSDCI, copy whereof is annexedherewith and marked ANNEXURE R/3 [PAGE 12 TO 51].As per the provisions of the said election bye-laws, the OfficeBearer and Members of the Managing Committee shall beelected by secret ballot. However, the Constitution of the AAIprovides that election of office bearers of the AAI shall beheld as per the rules and regulations which may be adopted bythe General Council, and there is no mention in the Constitutionof the AAI that such election shall be held by secret ballot.ii. As per the principles underlying the NSDCI, an affiliatedmember of National Sports Federation (NSF), i.e., fullmember of the NSF, should be represented by two delegatesin the General Council (by whatever name called). TheConstitution of AAI shows each State Association has beengiven representation of three delegates in the General Councili.e. one representative over and above the minimum of tworepresentatives.

iii. The NSDCI provides that an NSF shall give affiliation as afull member to State Association if such State Associationhas at least 50% of the district units functioning in that State asper Para 3.10 and Para 3.19 of Annexure-II of the Code. Butno such stipulation is found in the eligibility conditions foraffiliation of State Associations as members of the AAI.

iv. The Constitution of AAI also makes provision that up tothree persons may be bestowed the title of Honorary Life

President of AAI, without voting rights, in recognition of theservices rendered by past Presidents of AAI. The NSDCI issilent on the matter.’

Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel and Mr. Salwan, learnedcounsel for the petitioners fairly stated that the amendmentshall be carried out keeping in view the said deviations within aweek hence.

In view of the aforesaid, it is directed thatamendment shall be incorporated by treating it as anorder of the Court. After the constitution comes intoforce, election shall be held under the supervision ofMr. S.Y. Quraishi who has been appointed as theAdministrator by the High Court, within four weekstherefrom. Mr. Quraishi is requested to see that theelection takes place in accordance with the amendedconstitution which stands amended by incorporation byvirtue of order passed by this Court, as agreed to bylearned counsel for the parties.

The amended constitution shall be filed beforethis Court and copy whereof be supplied to Mr.Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General and MrRahul Mehra, respondent-in-person. But the filing of theamended constitution will not postpone the election, asdirected hereinabove. To elaborate, amendment shall beincorporated stating the same as an order of the Courtwithin week hence and thereafter Mr. Quraishi shallproceed to hold the election in accordance with theconstitution which will come into existence by virtue ofthe order passed today.

Mr. Quraishi shall be at liberty to see that theconstitution of the Association is strictly in accordancewith the Code and thereafter proceed with the election.If he has any reservation, he is at liberty to move thisCourt.

List after eight weeks.”

(emphasis supplied)

A4. As matter of fact, the contentious issues regarding the relevantamendment carried out to the Constitution of AAI stood resolved interms of this order. Further, this Court issued certain peremptory directionsto the Administrator to ensure compliance thereof within the timelinespecified in the order. The appeals could have been disposed of in termsof the said order itself, but the same were kept pending with sanguineBhope that the directions given therein would be complied with within thetime-frame specified in the order and that the compliance report wouldbe submitted by the Administrator in that regard. The appellant (AAI)filed an application before this Court on 11[th] December, 2017, being I.A.No.135882 of 2017 and placed on record the final amended ConstitutionCin terms of the order of this Court dated 4[th] December, 2017. Theappellant (AAI) then filed separate I.A. No.132436 of 2018 on 13[th]September, 2018, seeking directions to hold elections as per the Courtapproved Constitution.5. The Administrator, Mr. S.Y. Quraishi, appointed by the HighDCourt finally filed compliance report in the Registry of this Court on24[th] September, 2018, being document No.139081/2018 in appeal arisingfrom 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 otheramendments than the permitted or approved amendments in terms ofEthe order of this Court dated 4[th] December, 2017. It is also not in disputethat no formal application has been moved by the Administrator (appointedby the High Court) before this Court seeking liberty to amend theConstitution beyond the amendments referred to in the order of thisCourt dated 4[th] December, 2017. Further, no direction was sought fromFthis Court to permit the Administrator to conduct elections on the basisof the amendments incorporated by him in the new Constitution. Thegrievance of the appellants is that this amended Administrator’sConstitution was not even circulated to the constituent members until itcame to be filed in this Court.

G6. Thus, the grievance of the appellant(s) is that the Administratorhad carried out amendments beyond what was permitted and approvedby this Court in terms of the order dated 4[th] December, 2017, that toowithout any discussion with the members and stakeholders. ThatConstitution however, came to be notified for the first time on 4[th] October,2018, through e-mail to the members - State Association(s) along with aH

notice for election for the office bearers of AAI to be conducted by theAdministrator on 22[nd] December 2018, at 11.00 A.M.

7. The appellant (AAI) immediately rushed to this Court by wayof I.A. No.15611 of 2018, seeking directions to the Administrator toconduct elections in conformity with the Court approved Constitutionand seeking further directions to the Union of India to restore recognitionof the AAI which was de-recognised on 17[th] December, 2012. Thatapplication was moved for passing suitable directions by this Court on19[th] November, 2018, when the Court, after hearing the parties, passedthe following order:

“Since the election programme has already commenced in termsof notice dated 4[th] October, 2018, the same should proceed as perlaw uninterrupted.

We clarify that the result of the election will be subject tothe outcome of this application.

The grievance made in this application inter alia about improperamendments to the Constitution can be considered at later stage.

List this application in the second week of February, 2019.”

(emphasis supplied)

8. Resultantly, the election process was concluded in accordancewith the Administrator’s Constitution and not as per the amendedConstitution in terms of the order of this Court dated 4[th] December,2017. As result, the representatives of the appellant Association(s)could not contest the election due to the restrictions prescribed in theAdministrator’s Constitution.

9. The Union of India has also filed separate application beingI.A. No.15103/2019 on 24[th] January, 2019, raising objections to theAdministrator’s Constitution being in violation of the Sports Code. Eventhe Indian Olympic Association (for short “IOA”) has filed documentNo.24274/2018 on 8[th] February, 2019, objecting to the Administrator’sConstitution being in violation of the Sports Code and the Constitution ofthe World Archery. Another application has been filed by Kerala StateArchery Association (“KSAA”), being I.A. No.30011/2019 on 18[th]February, 2019, for directions to declare that the elections conducted bythe Administrator on the basis of the Administrator’s Constitution, isnull and void and to appoint new Returning Officer to hold fresh

Aelections in consonance with the Court approved Constitution, in termsof the order dated 4[th] December, 2017. The appellant (MAA) has alsofiled an application on 1[st] March, 2019, being I.A. No.3792/2019 seekinga direction to declare the Administrator’s Constitution as void ab initioand to appoint Returning Officer/Observer to conduct fresh electionfor AAI in terms of the Court approved Constitution as per order datedB4[th] December, 2017. The Union of India, as per the liberty given by thisCourt, has filed an affidavit on 5[th] March, 2019 highlighting the deviationsin the Administrator’s Constitution and the Sports Code.

10. During the course of hearing of these matters, before closingthe matter for judgment, the Court called upon the Administrator, appointedCby the High Court, to submit flow chart pointing out the steps taken byhim from 4[th] December, 2017 till 22[nd] December, 2018, until the electionof the new body. The Administrator has accordingly filed compilationgiving details about the follow up steps taken by him in that regard.

11. We have heard Mr. K.M. Natarajan, learned AdditionalDSolicitor General appearing for Union of India, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr.Sunil Gupta, Mr. Siddharth Dave, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Mr. GopalSankaranarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respective partiesand Mr. Rahul Mehra, respondent No.1 appearing-in-person.

12. The core issue to be answered in these proceedings is aboutEthe purport of the order passed by this Court on 4[th] December, 2017.The background in which the said order came to be passed after hearingthe parties, leaves no manner of doubt that it had modified the impugnedorder of the High Court dated 10[th] August, 2017. Further, the contentiousissues regarding the proposed amendment in the Constitution stoodFanswered to that extent. In that, this Court passed peremptory ordernot only for approving the proposed amendments, as noted in the orderdated 4[th] December, 2017, but also directed the Administrator to conductelections in consonance thereto within period of four weeks, afterincorporating the amendments within one week from the date of theorder. That was the limited mandate given to the Administrator. Indeed,Gthis Court had given liberty to the Administrator to seek clarification ordirections if and when necessary. That liberty, however, by no stretch ofimagination could be mistaken as authorising the Administrator to carryout amendments in the Constitution beyond the four amendments referredto in the order dated 4[th] December, 2017, much less to do so unilaterallyHwithout any prior notice to all the stakeholders and due deliberations

with them as mandated by the Constitution of the AAI. In any case, anyfurther amendments to the Constitution could be incorporated only aftertaking prior permission of this Court which was still in seisen of thematter. The Administrator was also ill-advised not to seek extension oftime for completion of election process, which was to be completed notlater than five weeks from 4[th] December, 2017.

13. The stand taken by the Administrator is that the order dated4[th] December, 2017 gave him liberty to ensure that the Constitution ofthe Association is strictly in accordance with the Sports Code and onlythereafter to proceed with the election. Indeed, liberty was given to theAdministrator in the last paragraph of the order dated 4[th] December,2017. However, the order if read as whole and keeping in mind thespirit of the order, it had directed the Administrator to ensure timelycompletion of election within five weeks from the date of the order onthe basis of four amendments approved by the Court, which wererequired to be incorporated by the Administrator within one week fromthe date of the order. No more and no less. For any other doubt ordeviation, the Administrator was obliged to seek clarification andappropriate directions from this Court, before the expiry of the timelinegiven in the order dated 4[th] December, 2017. The Administrator, however,merely filed compliance report on 24[th] September, 2018, in the Registryof this Court without attempting even once to invite the attention of thisCourt thereto. The Administrator has also filed further report in termsof the order dated 28[th] March, 2019. On perusal of the said reports, wemay hasten to accept the plea that the steps taken by the Administratorwere under mistaken belief - that he had the authority to proceed inthe manner that he did and including to amend the Constitution beyondthe four amendments referred to in the order dated 4[th] December, 2017.It is not case of defiance or disobedience of the Court’s order as such.

14. The appellant(s) would contend that even if it is not case ofintentional disobedience of the order of this Court by the Administrator,however, since steps taken by him are not in conformity with the spirit ofthe directions given by the Court, the same be declared as null and voidand non est. For, his actions had caused serious prejudice owing to theunilateral, unauthorised action taken by him, including of having deprivedthe members of the appellant Association(s) from representing andparticipating in the election process of the apex body, which they wereotherwise entitled to under the Constitution, as approved by this Court in

Aterms of the order dated 4[th] December, 2017. All this having been doneby the Court appointed Administrator, in the guise of an order of thisCourt, the Court must step in and nullify all the actions taken by theAdministrator which are beyond the scope of the order dated 4[th]December, 2017. To buttress this submission, reliance has been placedon Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P)BLtd. and Anr.[1], Anita International Vs. Tungabadra Sugar WorksMazdoor Sangh and Ors.[2], and Bihari Lal Vs. Shankar Das andOrs.[3]15. We are in agreement with the stand taken by the appellant(s)that the Administrator could have taken only such steps as were permittedCby this Court vide order dated 4[th] December, 2017, in their letter andspirit. Indisputably, the additional amendments incorporated by theAdministrator have resulted in denial of right to represent in and contestelections of the AAI for the existing members. Notably, even the directiongiven by the High Court whilst appointing the Administrator vide theDimpugned judgment, in no way gave authority to the Administrator toamend the Constitution, but was limited to conduct elections on the basisof the Constitution as it stood then. As ordered by the High Court, it wasfor the newly elected body to take steps in the right earnest to amendthe Constitution to bring it in line with the National Sports Code on specifiedmatters and then to conduct fresh elections on the basis of such amendedEConstitution. In other words, the Constitution could be amended only inaccordance with law, which means by the elected body after interactingwith all the stakeholders and members. The Administrator had no powerto amend the Constitution, much less unilaterally, except for the fouramendments approved by this Court, for which no further formality was

Frequired to be undertaken. The Administrator was obliged to conductelections on the basis of such amended Constitution in terms of the orderof this Court dated 4[th] December, 2017. No more and no less.

16. Appellants have rightly invited our attention to the decision ofthe Constitution Bench of this Court in Smt. Damyanti Naranga Vs.GThe Union of India and Ors.[4], which had approved the exposition inG.K. Ghose and Anr. Vs. E.X. Joseph.[5] In that case, this Court had

1 (1996) 4 SCC 622 (paragraph 19)

2 (2016) 9 SCC 44 (paragraphs 54, 55)

3 AIR 1925 Lahore 309

4 (1971) 1 SCC 678

H5 (1963) Supp. 3 SCR 789

held that the right to form an Association was conditioned by the existenceof the recognition of the said Association by the Government. In thatcase the Court had held:

“It is not disputed that the Fundamental Rights guaranteed byArticle 19 can be claimed by Government servants. Article 33which confers power on the Parliament to modify the rights intheir application, to the Armed Forces, clearly brings out the factthat all citizens, including Government servants, are entitled toclaim the rights guaranteed by Article 19. Thus, the validity of theimpugned rule has to be judged on the basis that the respondentand his co-employees are entitled to form Associations or Unions.It is clear that Rule 4-B imposes restriction on this right. Itvirtually compels Government servant to withdraw hismembership of the Service Association of Government servantsas soon as recognition accorded to the said Association is withdrawor if, after the Association is formed, no recognition is accordedto it within six months. In other words, the right to form anAssociation is conditioned by the existence of the recognition ofthe said Association by the Government. If the Association obtainsthe recognition and continues to enjoy it, Government servantscan become members of the said Association; if the Associationdoes not secure recognition from the Government or recognitiongranted to it is withdrawn, Government servants must cease to bethe members of the said Association. That is the plain effect ofthe impugned rule.”17. This dictum was quoted with approval by the ConstitutionBench to conclude that the right to form an Association included theright to its continuance and any law altering the composition of theAssociation compulsorily will be breach of the right to form theAssociation. Thus understood, the steps taken by the Administratorbeyond the scope of the authority bestowed upon him in terms of theorder of this Court dated 4[th] December, 2017, cannot be validated by theCourt but must be treated as non est in law. It would have been differentmatter if the Administrator had presented the additional amendmentsbefore this Court and invited this Court to approve the same after hearingthe concerned parties.

18. Be that as it may, the question as to whether the amendmentsincorporated by the Administrator are justified and proper or, so to speak,

ABCD

Aessential as per the exposition of this Court in Board of Control forCricket Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors.[6], need not detainus. For, the further amendments to the Constitution could be effectedonly in the manner provided by the Constitution of the AAI including interms of the order dated 4[th] December, 2017. It is thus not necessaryfor us to examine as to whether, in fact, there is any deviation or notBfrom the dispensation predicated in the National Sports Code, ascontended by the respondents and the counsel appearing for theAdministrator.

19. For the time being, without any hesitation, we are of theconsidered opinion that all steps taken by the Administrator, includingCthe elections conducted by him on the basis of the Constitution (as amendedby him), will have to be treated as null and void and non est in law. Theparties will have to be relegated to the position as on 4[th] December,2017, consequent to incorporation of the four amendments approved interms of the same order. After carrying out those four amendments inDthe Constitution, the election will have to be conducted to constitute thenew body, which would then take steps to introduce further amendmentsto the Constitution, if so required, to bring it in line with the NationalSports Code, after giving an opportunity to all concerned. Only after theamendments are accepted and approved, fresh elections be conductedfor constituting new body in conformity with such duly amendedEConstitution.

20. In reference to certain apprehensions expressed by therespondents due to reactions of the World Archery body, we must observethat the controversy cannot be adjudicated on the basis of perception ofthe World Archery body. Similarly, we do not wish to expand the scopeFof the present proceedings as the main writ petition is still pending beforethe High Court of Delhi, where all issues can be deliberated and answeredappropriately. While doing so, the High Court, no doubt, would be guidedby the exposition in Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India and Ors.[7], K.Murugan Vs. Fencing Association of India, Jabalpur and Ors.[8],Gand Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association ofBihar and Ors,[9] on which reliance has been placed by the counselrepresenting the newly elected body of AAI and the respondents, for

6 (2016) 8 SCC 5357 (1988) 4 SCC 226 (para 1)8 (1991) 2 SCC 412 (para 12)H9 (2015) 3 SCC 251 (para 100-103)

issuing appropriate directions in public interest litigation. In other words,the High Court will examine all aspects of the matter on their own meritsin accordance with law.

21. We make it clear that the High Court may also consider thestand taken by the appellant(s) and Union of India that the decision ofthis Court in Board of Control for Cricket (supra)[10]will be of no availto the present case, because the National Sports Code takes within itsfold fifty-two disciplines of sports and Cricket is not one of the scheduledsports. In other words, the dispensation to be followed must be inconformity with the National Sports Code in so far as AAI is 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 theapplications on the following basis:

(I)We declare that the Constitution of AAI is amended only tothe extent of four amendments referred to in the order dated4[th] December, 2017, treating it as amended by an order ofthis Court, without requiring to comply with any otherformality. Rest of the amendments are declared as null andvoid and non est in law. The same, at best, may be pursuedas proposal to be considered after the newly elected bodyinitiates procedure for carrying out further amendments tothe Constitution of AAI as per law.

(II) We further declare that all steps taken by the Administratoron the basis of the Administrator’s Constitution, includingthe elections conducted on 22[nd] December, 2018, are nulland void and non est in law.

(III) All concerned parties are relegated to the position as it stoodafter the incorporation of the four amendments referred toin the order dated 4[th] December, 2017. Further, the HighCourt-appointed Administrator stands relieved in terms ofthis order. The elected body, in office, would continue tofunction hereafter as Committee of Administrators appointedGin terms of this order. We deem it appropriate to allow thisCommittee to continue in office as nothing adverse has beenbrought to our notice for their continuation until the newlyelected body takes over. However, the Committee shal

Adischarge only routine and day-to-day activities and shall nottake any policy decision or create new financial liability, untilthe newly elected body takes over.

(IV) The election for constituting the new elected body becompleted by the aforementioned Committee appointed byBthis Court within four weeks from today and the electionprocess must be conducted strictly in accordance with theConstitution as amended in terms of order dated 4[th]December, 2017.

(V) The newly elected body, after taking over the office, shallCmove proposal for further amendment of the Constitutionto bring it in line with the National Sports Code and thatprocess be taken to its logical end expeditiously.

(VI) Any issue arising from such amendment may be raised beforethe High Court where the main matter i.e. Writ PetitionD(Civil) No.195/2010 is pending. That writ petition be decidedon its own merits and in accordance with law.

(VII) The Committee shall submit compliance report before theHigh Court immediately after the newly elected body takesover the office but not later than six weeks from today. IssuesEconcerning the said report may also be considered by theHigh Court on their own merits in accordance with law.

23. The appeals are allowed in the aforementioned terms. All theapplications are disposed of.

24. While parting, we place on record our word of appreciationFfor the services rendered by the High Court appointed AdministratorMr. S.Y. Quraishi. We also appreciate the sincere effort of respondentNo.1 for the cause of sports and for introducing reforms in the functioningof the apex body (AAI).

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals allowed.