Delhi HC Steers AITA Towards Bye-Laws Overhaul, Sets September 2026 Election Deadline
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court issued a structured timetable for amending AITA's Constitution and holding fresh elections, without disturbing the court-appointed Administrator.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Madhu Jain, on 18 June 2026 issued interim directions in two cross-appeals arising from a governance dispute over the All India Tennis Association. Without deciding the merits of either appeal, the Bench charted a step-by-step process for amending the AITA's Constitution and Bye-Laws in conformity with the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 and the National Sports Governance (National Sports Bodies) Rules, 2026, and directed that fresh elections to the AITA Executive Committee be completed by 30 September 2026. The directions were issued with the consent of all parties and modify, to that extent, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27 April 2026.
The Dispute Before the Division Bench
The appeals arose from a common judgment passed by a Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 13458 of 2024, filed by former tennis professional Somdev Kishore Devvarman and Purav Mukul Raja. The writ petition alleged flagrant violations of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 and the directions in Rahul Mehra v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 195 of 2010, in the conduct of AITA elections scheduled for 28 April 2024.
The AITA held its Annual General Meeting on 28 September 2024, at which elections were conducted. Pursuant to an earlier court order dated 24 September 2024, the results were placed in a sealed cover and kept subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The existing Executive Committee continued to manage the AITA's affairs in the interim.
The Single Judge's judgment of 27 April 2026 directed, among other things, that the sealed cover be opened and the election results declared, that the elected body function as an Interim Executive Committee, and that Justice (Retd.) Gita Mittal — former Chief Justice of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court — be appointed as Administrator of the AITA with wide-ranging powers over constitutional amendments, elections, finances, and day-to-day affairs.
Two Letters Patent Appeals followed. In LPA 422/2026, the AITA challenged the appointment of the Administrator and the breadth of powers vested in her. In LPA 447/2026, Devvarman and Raja challenged the portions of the judgment that recognised the September 2024 election results and permitted the elected body to function as the Interim Executive Committee.
AITA's Challenge to the Administrator's Powers
Senior Advocate Avi Singh, appearing for the AITA, argued that the Single Judge had appointed the Administrator without recording any finding of illegality in the AITA's Constitution or in the conduct of the elections. He submitted that, absent clear and cogent evidence of grave mismanagement, judicial interference in the affairs of an autonomous society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is impermissible.
The AITA pointed to the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 and the Sports Governance Rules, which allow National Sports Federations time until 30 June 2026, extendable to 31 December 2026, to amend their constitutions. The appointment of an Administrator on the assumption that the AITA would not comply was, it was argued, premature.
The AITA also raised the spectre of international consequences. It relied on the derecognition of the All India Football Federation by FIFA following the appointment of a court-appointed Committee of Administrators, and on the Supreme Court's stay of an administrator's appointment in the Indian Olympic Association in Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India & Ors., SLP(C) No. 14533/2022, on the ground that it could compromise institutional autonomy and invite coercive action by the International Olympic Committee. The AITA warned that a similar outcome could jeopardise Indian players' participation, particularly in the Asian Games, 2026.
On the constitutional plane, the AITA argued that Sections 5, 6, and 8 of the Societies Registration Act vest the right to frame and amend a society's memorandum and regulations in its members, and that these statutory and contractual rights cannot be transferred to an external administrator under Article 226. Reliance was placed on a recent coordinate bench decision in AIFF v. Churchill Brothers Sports Club Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., LPA Nos. 321-322 of 2026, where this Court held that a registered society is autonomous and that a court exercising Article 226 jurisdiction cannot assume functions reserved to the society under its own constitution.
Devvarman and Raja's Case for Continued Oversight
Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan, appearing for Devvarman and Raja, pressed the opposite concern. He submitted that the AITA had consistently disregarded the Sports Code, Ministry directions, and the Rahul Mehra judgment. The AITA's Constitution had not been amended since 2000. Continued supervision by the Administrator was, he argued, necessary to ensure compliance with the new statutory framework.
On the validity of the September 2024 elections, Narayan submitted that the elections had to be tested against the law in force on 28 September 2024 — namely the Sports Code as interpreted in Rahul Mehra. Several candidates, he argued, may have been disqualified on grounds of age, tenure, and cooling-off restrictions. The Sports Act and Sports Governance Rules, notified on 1 January 2026 and 12 January 2026 respectively, could not retrospectively validate an election allegedly illegal when conducted. He further submitted that at least eight members of the Interim Executive Committee were allegedly disqualified even under the new framework.
Narayan relied on All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, SLP(C) Nos. 30748-30749 of 2017, where the Supreme Court held that sporting bodies must function with accessibility, efficiency, and integrity, and cautioned NSFs against creating conditions for derecognition to resist court-appointed administrators. He also cited Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2015) 3 SCC 351, for the proposition that sporting bodies exercising pervasive control over a sport are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
The Union of India's Position
Counsel for the Union of India informed the Bench of two significant communications. By a letter dated 18 May 2026, the International Tennis Federation had acknowledged the AITA's Interim Executive Committee, noted the Administrator's appointment, and indicated that if the Administrator continued beyond the timelines in the impugned judgment, the ITF may consider action under its regulatory framework, including review of the AITA's membership status. By a letter dated 17 June 2026, the Ministry directed all National Sports Federations to align their constitutions, institutional processes, and operations with the Sports Act and Sports Governance Rules by 30 June 2026.
The Union of India stated that it does not support the appointment of the Administrator, as court-appointed administrators in NSFs are often viewed by international sporting bodies as third-party interference. The Ministry clarified that its own role under the Sports Act is limited to regulatory action, including derecognition, against non-compliant NSFs; it does not supervise amendments to an NSF's constitution.
How the Bench Reasoned
The Division Bench noted that the appeals raised substantial questions of law requiring consideration. However, it found it expedient and in the interest of justice to prioritise the amendment of the AITA's Constitution and Bye-Laws, given the ITF's letter of 18 May 2026 and the Ministry's directive of 17 June 2026, both of which pointed to an urgent deadline of 30 June 2026.
The Bench also noted that the Administrator had, on 25 May 2026, already circulated a draft of suggested amendments to all stakeholders, inviting comments by 1 June 2026. With this process already under way, the Bench invited Senior Counsel on both sides to explore whether an amicable and workable arrangement could be reached.
The AITA, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, agreed to hold fresh elections after amendment of the Constitution and Bye-Laws in conformity with the Sports Act and Sports Governance Rules. It further agreed that the Interim Executive Committee would provide comments and suggestions on the Administrator's draft amendments, which the Administrator would then examine after hearing the Interim Executive Committee. Devvarman and Raja, also without prejudice, agreed to explore a resolution on the same basis, with the Administrator passing a reasoned order after hearing the parties and placing it before the Court.
The Bench accepted this framework and issued interim directions with the consent of all parties, without entering upon the merits of the rival contentions. It clarified that any action taken or resolution passed by the General Body on the proposed amendments would remain subject to the final outcome of the appeals — a direction the Bench noted would also address the concern raised by Devvarman and Raja about the General Body potentially not adopting the Administrator's draft.
Directions and Timetable
The Bench issued the following step-by-step timetable:
The Interim Executive Committee must examine the Administrator's draft amendments and submit its suggestions, comments, objections, modifications, additions, or deletions with brief reasons on or before 25 June 2026.
The Administrator must then examine those submissions, afford the Interim Executive Committee an opportunity of hearing, and finalise the proposed amendments on or before 15 July 2026. Where any suggestion is not accepted, the Administrator must record the reason for disagreement in the consolidated draft.
An Extraordinary General Meeting of the AITA must be held on or before 31 July 2026, on a date to be fixed by the Administrator. The General Body shall deliberate and vote on the proposed amendments clause by clause, with the decision on each amendment — and the reasons for its acceptance, rejection, or modification — recorded in the minutes. The minimum notice period required under the existing Constitution and Bye-Laws is dispensed with for convening this meeting.
All State Tennis Associations affiliated with the AITA are permitted to vote at the Extraordinary General Meeting and in the elections to the Executive Committee, irrespective of whether they are compliant with the Sports Act and Sports Governance Rules at the time of voting.
Elections to the Executive Committee must be conducted in accordance with the amended Constitution and Bye-Laws, the Sports Act, and the Sports Governance Rules, on or before 30 September 2026.
The newly constituted Executive Committee must ensure that affiliated State Associations comply with the Sports Act, the Sports Governance Rules, and applicable International Charters on or before 31 December 2026.
The impugned judgment of the Single Judge stands modified to the extent of these directions. The appeals are listed as part-heard matters before the same Bench on 14 August 2026 at 4:30 PM.
Outcome
The Division Bench declined to adjudicate the merits of either appeal at this stage. The Administrator, Justice (Retd.) Gita Mittal, continues in her role. The Interim Executive Committee — constituted from the September 2024 election results — continues to manage day-to-day affairs. The validity of those elections and the legality of the Administrator's appointment remain open questions to be decided when the appeals are heard on merits. All actions taken by the General Body on the proposed amendments will be subject to the final outcome of the appeals.