Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of Uttar Pradesh Kho Kho Association's Appeal

The Delhi High Court upheld a decision denying recognition to the Uttar Pradesh Kho Kho Association's 2021 executive committee. Citing the 2011 Sports Code, the Court found the election non-compliant with sports governance norms. The association was permitted to explore other legal avenues regarding its complaints against the Kho Kho Federation of India.

The Delhi High Court has upheld an earlier decision denying recognition of the Uttar Pradesh Kho Kho Association's executive committee, elected in October 2021. In doing so, the Court affirmed that the National Sports Development Code of 2011 applies not only to national sports federations but also to their state associations. The association was granted liberty to pursue other legal remedies related to its allegations against the Kho Kho Federation of India.

A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia identified no flaw in the Single Judge's ruling, which rejected the association's plea for recognition of its elected body and re-affiliation with the KKFI. Consequently, the appeal and all pending applications were dismissed. The Bench observed that the Sports Code's applicability to state associations affiliated with national sports federations was never in doubt, and judgments in Rahul Mehra v. Union of India and KP Rao vs. Union of India clarified established legal positions.

Disregarding the appellant's argument against retrospective application of these rulings, the Bench ruled that the Sports Code governed the 2021 elections. The judgment highlighted that office-bearers elected in those polls, many being government employees, allegedly held positions in sports bodies longer than allowed under governance norms. The Court also flagged that the post of Chairman was not foreseen under the Sports Code and noted discrepancies with the election process under the previous Orissa High Court ruling, which was ultimately deemed non-existent.

The allegation that the federation accepted the election results by not contesting them was dismissed by the Court, which ruled that mere consent to elections did not guarantee recognition if conducted contrary to law. Claims of unlawful de-affiliation and the establishment of a parallel body were noted by the Bench but require further evidence beyond writ proceedings. The association can now seek appropriate legal remedies. The refusal to re-affiliate the association followed a review by the federation's Affiliation and Election Review Committee.