Institute of Legal and Management Studies

"Hockey is an Olympic sport and under the Indian Olympic Association regulations, there can be only one association from one state," said the Supreme Court today while refusing to entertain Vidarbha Hockey Association's plea for recognition as an associate-member of Hockey India and Indian Olympic Association.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta heard the matter and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the case, after hearing brief arguments.

The petitioner had invoked writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court praying that Hockey India and Indian Olympic Association associate it as an Associate-Member. Prior to this, the Bombay High Court had upheld Hockey India's decision revoking the petitioner's membership.

When Justice Kant probed as to how a writ Court could grant relief in that regard, the petitioner's counsel informed that the Association was infact an Associate-Member in 2013. However, that membership was taken away "arbitrarily" on the basis of a clause which did not apply to it. He also claimed that Delhi had over 20 Associate-Members.

From the material placed on record, Justice Datta noted that the petitioner was referring to "Cricket Association" and "Kabaddi Federation", but the two were not Olympic sports. Adverting to the Indian Olympic Association regulations, the judge emphasized that the order in question de-registered not only the petitioner-Association but also the Mumbai Hockey Association, as there can be only one association from Maharashtra.

"How a writ Court can do it? This is what we want to know..." queried Justice Kant. Subsequently, the judge grilled the petitioner's counsel as to what was the tearing urgency to get the matter listed in partial Court working days.

"June, 2024 order...you are filing SLP in May...you are getting it listed in vacation...please tell us what is that great urgency which has arisen in 3-4 days? 70% matters listed today are those which should have been before these working days or after...you people have forced us to sit a whole night to read..." said Justice Kant. In this regard, the petitioner's counsel replied that he did not seek listing of the matter in the partial Court working days on grounds of urgency.

Before Justice Kant dictated the order, Justice Datta, pointing to a specific page in the records, also questioned if the petitioner had countered the aspect by filing an affidavit before the High Court. When the petitioner's counsel replied in the negative, the judge said, "then that's the end of the matter...you should have explained before the High Court, not before the Supreme Court for the first time". Ultimately, the case was dismissed as withdrawn.

Case Title: VIDARBHA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION AND ORS. Versus HOCKEY INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 24236-2025