Institute of Legal and Management Studies

With consent of the parties, the Supreme Court today consolidated before the Delhi High Court cases pertaining to elections of the Boxing Federation of India.

"We have discussed the matter in open Court. Parties agree that Delhi High Court can be the appropriate forum to agitate all issues. We dispose of case numbers [...] pending before Himachal Pradesh High Court with liberty to the writ petitioners before the High Court to file either a fresh writ before Delhi High Court or join the pending proceedings. Respondents undertake not to raise issue of territorial jurisdiction", the Court ordered.

A stay order of the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court, which effectively paused the election process, was permitted to continue to operate for 6 weeks. Meanwhile, parties may seek continuation/modification thereof before the Delhi High Court, the Court said.

The cases were consolidated before the Delhi High Court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and possibility of conflicting orders. "Ideally, we should have viewpoint of one High Court", Justice Kant said.

Though the respondents (BFI and others) claimed that the issue had become infructuous as the previous international body which recognized BFI had been de-recognized by the International Olympic Committee, and BFI is now recognized by another international entity, the Court was of the opinion that it was not required to delve into the issue.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with pleas filed by former sports minister Anurag Thakur and the Himachal Pradesh Boxing Association (HPBA) against the Himachal Pradesh High Court order.

As per contentions, Thakur, an executive member of HPBA, was duly nominated to contest the elections on March 28. But, his nomination was arbitrarily rejected a few days prior without any notice or opportunity of hearing, at the behest of former BFI president Ajay Singh.

Initially, a Single Judge of the High Court stayed Thakur's disqualification from the Electoral College and directed BFI to extend the date of nominations so that Thakur could file his nomination and participate in the polls. However, a Division bench overturned this decision. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present petitions.

It was contended that the electoral college list issued by BFI excluded HPBA representatives based on a notification of March 7, which brought in additional eligibility criteria for nominations. Assailing the same as violative of BFI's Memorandum and the National Sports Code, Thakur highlighted that the notification was issued after Singh's tenure ended.

"The notification, issued after the expiry of Mr. Ajay Singh's tenure as president, was not only arbitrary, but also the BFI memorandum and the National Sports Code. Thakur's candidacy was arbitrarily rejected without notice or hearing on March 18, despite the HPBA having duly nominated him as its official representative in accordance with the BFI electoral guidelines."

Background

On March 7, Thakur, who had been representing the HPBA, as well as Larry Kharpran of Meghalaya, Asish Kumar Saha of Tripura and Delhi state body's Rohit Jain and Neeraj Bhatt were found ineligible to be part of the electoral college.

The Federation's president, Ajay Singh, issued the order in question and it was approved by the returning officer, Justice (Retd) RK Gauba. The order was based on the ground that Thakur was not an elected member of the HPBA, which he intended to represent in the Electoral College.

Essentially, Singh's order provided that electoral representation in the (then) upcoming polls were to be restricted to only elected members of affiliated state units (like HPBA). Challenging the same, HPCA moved the High Court seeking a declaration that the March 7 Notification was null and void, as it was ultra vires the Memorandum of Association of BFI and in violation of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.

Initially, a Single Bench passed order in favor of Anurag Thakur, directing BFI to extend the date of nominations. However, in appeal, a Division Bench stayed order(s) of the Single Judge on the basis that the High Court did not have jurisdiction.

Case Title: ANURAG SINGH THAKUR Versus AJAY SINGH AND ORS., Diary No. 25229-2025 (and connected cases)