< Back

Case Analysis Uttar Pradesh Kho Kho Association vs Kho Kho Federation of India & Ors 2026 DHC 1430

Synopsis

This judgment, delivered by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, dismisses a writ petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh Kho Kho Association (UPKKA) challenging its disaffiliation by the Kho Kho Federation of India (KKFI). The dispute has a long and contentious history, including court-ordered elections supervised by a retired judge. The core of the present challenge was the rejection of UPKKA's application for re-affiliation based on the report of an Affiliation and Election Review Committee (AERC) of the KKFI. The High Court, after a detailed examination of the record, found that the election process was vitiated by reliance on a non-existent/fabricated order of the Odisha High Court, which led to the erroneous exclusion of the binding National Sports Code. Furthermore, the AERC's report revealed serious violations of the Sports Code, including the election of ineligible government employees and financial irregularities. The court held that the decision to reject affiliation was justified and that the writ petition lacked merit, though it granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue civil remedies.

1. Heading for the Judgment

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

W.P.(C) (Original Number not specified in text, but arising from a series of connected matters)

UTTAR PRADESH KHO KHO ASSOCIATION ....Petitioner
versus
KHO KHO FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS. ....Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta

Date of Decision: 18th FEBRUARY, 2026

2. Legal Framework

This judgment operates within the following constitutional and administrative law framework:

The Constitution of India:
Article 226: The jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner, empowering the High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of rights and to ensure that public bodies (like NSFs, which receive government recognition and funding) function in a fair, transparent, and lawful manner.
The National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (Sports Code): A set of executive instructions and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS) to govern the functioning of National Sports Federations (NSFs). The judgment establishes that its provisions are binding not only on NSFs but also on their constituent State Associations.
Key Provisions Engaged:
Age and Tenure Restrictions: Limits on the number of terms and the age of office bearers.
Government Servants: Restrictions on government employees holding elective posts in sports bodies, requiring prior sanction (No Objection Certificate/NOC) and limiting tenure.
Financial Accountability: Requirements for maintaining and submitting audited accounts.
Model Election Guidelines: Rules for conducting fair and transparent elections.
Principles of Administrative Law:
Judicial Review: The court's role is to examine the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself, unless it is arbitrary, mala fide, or perverse.
Binding Nature of Guidelines: Governmental guidelines, even if not statutory, can be binding on bodies that accept government patronage and recognition.

Related Precedents Cited and Relied Upon:

Rahul Mehra vs. Union of India, W.P.(C). 195/2010 (judgment dated 16.08.2022): (Delhi High Court, Division Bench) - A landmark judgment holding that the provisions of the Sports Code are binding on every constituent of a National Sports Federation, including State and District Level Associations. Compliance is "non-negotiable."
K.P. Rao vs. Union of India and Ors., 2023/DHC/000974: (Delhi High Court, Division Bench) - Reiterated the principles from Rahul Mehra, holding that the age and tenure restrictions of the Sports Code apply to all constituents of an NSF, from the national to the district level.
Mahipal Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10284: (Delhi High Court, Division Bench) - Held that NSFs cannot create posts (like "Life President" or "Chairman") not contemplated by the Sports Code. Such innovative nomenclature is illegal, and holders of such posts have no right to represent the Federation.

3. Basic Relevant Facts of the Case

Disaffiliation (2020): UPKKA, a state association and founding member of KKFI, was disaffiliated on 30.01.2020, following a letter from its then President claiming dissolution. An Interim Committee was appointed by KKFI.
Court-Ordered Elections (2021): In W.P.(C) 863/2021, the Delhi High Court appointed a retired judge, Justice D.P. Singh, as Returning Officer to conduct fresh elections for UPKKA. The KKFI agreed to the process.
The "Fabricated Order" Incident: In an order dated 03.10.2021, the Returning Officer relied extensively on what he believed was an order of the Odisha High Court to conclude that the National Sports Code was not applicable to State Associations and that only the Model Election Guidelines applied. It was later discovered that no such order had ever been passed by the Odisha High Court. The quoted text was actually from a counter-affidavit filed by the Indian Olympic Association. This meant the Returning Officer was misled into excluding the application of the entire Sports Code.
Elections Conducted (27.10.2021): Elections were held, and a new Executive Committee was declared.
Request for Re-affiliation and KKFI's Response: UPKKA sought re-affiliation. KKFI, after multiple requests for documents and following court directions, constituted an Affiliation and Election Review Committee (AERC) on 01.12.2022 to examine the matter.
AERC Report and Rejection: The AERC submitted a detailed report on 05.12.2022, finding numerous and serious irregularities:
Ineligible Office Bearers: Five elected office bearers (including the President, Chairman, and Treasurer) were government employees who had held posts for more than the permitted tenure (two terms/5 years) and did not possess valid NOCs.
Financial Irregularities: UPKKA failed to provide audited accounts. Records obtained from the Registrar of Societies showed that only about 10% of expenditure was on Kho Kho activities, with the majority spent on unrelated programs (AIDS awareness, etc.).
Concealment and Non-Cooperation: UPKKA consistently avoided providing basic information like the list of affiliated district units and financial records, offering vague excuses (e.g., documents stolen).
Violation of KKFI Constitution and Sports Code: The elections were held in fundamental violation of the binding Sports Code.
Impugned Decision: Based on the AERC report, the General Council of KKFI rejected UPKKA's application for re-affiliation. This decision was challenged in the amended writ petition.

4. Issues in the Judgment

The court addressed the following primary issues:

Validity of the Election Process: Whether the elections held on 27.10.2021, which were based on the Returning Officer's order that erroneously excluded the application of the National Sports Code (relying on a non-existent judicial order), can be considered valid and binding on the KKFI.
Binding Nature of Sports Code on State Associations: Whether the provisions of the National Sports Code, particularly regarding eligibility of government employees and financial accountability, apply to State Associations like the petitioner.
Reasonableness of KKFI's Decision: Whether the decision of the KKFI, based on the AERC report, to reject UPKKA's application for re-affiliation was arbitrary, mala fide, or perverse, warranting interference under Article 226.

5. Ratio Decidendi (The Reasoning of the Court)

The court's reasoning was comprehensive and firmly anchored in the binding nature of the Sports Code and the doctrine of judicial review.

The Election Process was Vitiated: The court held that the Returning Officer's reliance on a "fictitious/non-existent order" of the Odisha High Court was a fundamental flaw. This led to the erroneous conclusion that the Sports Code did not apply. Therefore, the entire election process was conducted on an incorrect legal basis and was "clearly vitiated."
Sports Code is Binding on State Associations (Applying Rahul Mehra and K.P. Rao): The court unequivocally rejected the premise that the Sports Code does not apply to state associations. Citing the Division Bench judgments in Rahul Mehra and K.P. Rao, it held that the provisions of the Sports Code are binding on every constituent of a National Sports Federation, including state and district-level bodies. The age, tenure, and NOC requirements are valid and enforceable.
AERC Findings Justified Rejection: The court found that the AERC report was detailed and contained "scathing findings" regarding violations of the Sports Code. The issues highlighted—ineligible government employees, financial opacity, and concealment of information—were substantial and went to the very heart of good governance. The court noted that the petitioner's attempt to refute these findings would require an "elaborate evidentiary exercise" unsuitable for writ proceedings.
KKFI's Agreement to Elections Not a Waiver: The court clarified that KKFI's agreement to the conduct of elections did not mean it had waived its right to insist on compliance with the Sports Code and its own constitution before granting affiliation. Affiliation is a separate act of recognition, contingent upon meeting all governing norms.
Deference to Fact-Finding: The court gave due deference to the fact-finding exercise conducted by the AERC. In the absence of a showing of perversity or mala fides, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, was not inclined to substitute its own view for the reasoned findings of the expert committee.

6. New Legal Framework Established

This judgment does not establish a new legal principle but serves as a powerful reaffirmation and practical application of the principles laid down in Rahul Mehra and K.P. Rao. Its key contributions are:

Consequences of Ignoring Binding Precedent: The judgment clearly demonstrates the consequences of a court-appointed officer or a party disregarding binding legal precedents (like Rahul Mehra) based on incorrect or fabricated information. It shows that proceedings founded on such an error can be rendered invalid.
Limits of Court-Ordered Processes: The judgment clarifies that even a court-ordered process (like elections) does not create an automatic right to recognition if the process itself was flawed and if the outcome violates binding legal and policy frameworks. The court will not compel a body to affiliate with an entity that is fundamentally non-compliant with the law.
Burden of Proof in Writ Petitions Challenging Fact-Finding: The judgment reinforces that in writ petitions challenging decisions based on detailed fact-finding reports, the petitioner bears a heavy burden. Vague denials are insufficient; the petitioner must demonstrate the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. If the challenge requires a trial-like evidentiary process, the writ court will decline to intervene.

7. Examination and Analysis by the Court

The court's analysis was methodical and focused on the legality of the decision-making process.

Chronological Reconstruction: The court meticulously traced the entire history of the dispute, from the initial disaffiliation in 2020 to the AERC report in 2022, to provide context.
Identification of the Fatal Flaw: The court zeroed in on the Returning Officer's order dated 03.10.2021 and the reliance on the non-existent Odisha High Court order. This was identified as the foundational error that vitiated the subsequent process.
Affirmation of Binding Precedent: The court then turned to the legal position and, by quoting extensively from Rahul Mehra and K.P. Rao, definitively established that the Sports Code binds state associations. This directly countered the premise on which the elections were conducted.
Deference to the AERC's Factual Findings: The court examined the AERC report and noted the specific findings regarding ineligible candidates (paragraphs 16-22 of the report, quoted in the judgment) and financial irregularities. It acknowledged the petitioner's denial but held that resolving such factual disputes was beyond the scope of Article 226.
Rejection of Mala Fides Allegation: While the petitioner alleged mala fides on the part of KKFI, the court did not find sufficient grounds to sustain this allegation, especially given the detailed, evidence-based AERC report.
Grant of Liberty: In a balanced conclusion, while dismissing the petition, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to pursue appropriate civil remedies, acknowledging that the factual disputes might be more appropriately adjudicated in a different forum.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

Critical Analysis:

This judgment is a robust defense of good governance in sports administration and a strong check against attempts to circumvent binding rules through procedural irregularities.

Strengths: The judgment's primary strength is its unwavering commitment to the rule of law and the binding nature of the Sports Code, as established by earlier Division Bench rulings. By highlighting the "fabricated order" incident, the court exposed a serious attempt to mislead a judicial process, which fatally undermined the petitioner's case. The deference shown to the detailed fact-finding of the AERC is appropriate for writ jurisdiction. The judgment sends a clear message that technical compliance with a court order (holding elections) does not excuse substantive non-compliance with the law.
Correctness: The decision is legally sound. The court correctly applied the principles of stare decisis by following the binding precedents of Rahul Mehra and K.P. Rao. It correctly identified the limits of its own jurisdiction under Article 226, refusing to convert the writ petition into a trial of disputed facts.
Potential Impact: This judgment will have a significant deterrent effect on State Sports Associations. It makes it clear that they cannot hide behind court-ordered processes to shield themselves from scrutiny under the Sports Code. It empowers National Sports Federations to insist on compliance with eligibility and financial norms from their members. The liberty granted to pursue civil remedies provides a safety valve, ensuring the petitioner is not left without any forum to contest the factual findings.

Final Outcome:

The writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the decision of the KKFI to reject UPKKA's application for re-affiliation. However, it granted the petitioner the liberty to take recourse to appropriate civil proceedings to challenge the factual findings of the AERC report.