Madhya Pradesh Judo Association vs Judo Federation Of India And Anr

Court
Delhi High Court

$~107 and 108
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5500/2026 and CM APPL. 26979/2026

Date of decision: 27.04.2026

IN THE MATTERS OF:-

MADHYA PRADESH JUDO ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avi Singh, Sr Adv, with Mr.Parth
Goswami, Mr. Ranjeet Pawar, Ms.
Nalinaksha Singh,and Ms. Mizba
Dhebar Advocates.

versus

JUDO FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta, Mr. Amit Gupta,
Advocates for R-1.
Mr. T. Singhdev (Adv), Mr. Abhijit
Chakravarty (Adv) for R-NMC.
AND

+ W.P.(C) 5501/2026 and CM APPL. 26981/2026

ALL ASSAM JUDO ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avi Singh, Sr Adv, with Mr.Parth
Goswami, Mr. Ranjeet Pawar, Ms.
Nalinaksha Singh,and Ms. Mizba
Dhebar Advocates.


versus

JUDO FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta, Mr. Amit Gupta,
Advocates for R-1.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
10:05:39

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The present two writ petitions arise from a common factual matrix
and a common impugned communication issued by the Administrator of the
Judo Federation of India (JFI) on 20.04.2026. Both petitions are, therefore,
being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners are State Judo Associations, the Madhya Pradesh Judo
Association and the All Assam Judo Association duly affiliated with the JFI,
which is the national sports federation for the sport of Judo in India.
Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 12.02.2026, the Administrator
appointed an Electoral Officer on 17.03.2026 to conduct elections to the
Interim Executive Committee of the Federation. Thereafter, on 26.03.2026,
the Administrator issued a Notice calling upon all affiliated associations to
submit the names of their authorized representatives in prescribed Form-1
by 10.04.2026. The petitioners complied and submitted their nominations
within the stipulated time.
3. However, on 20.04.2026, the Administrator himself issued the
impugned communication, whereby upon his own scrutiny, he declared the
petitioners’ representatives as ineligible and excluded them from the
Electoral College. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioners have approached
this Court seeking to quash the impugned communication, to restore their
names to the Electoral College, and to direct the Electoral Officer to perform
his duties in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
10:05:39

4. When the matter was taken up on 23.04.2026, this Court directed the
respondents to take instructions and justify the impugned communication.
Learned counsel appearing for the Administrator submitted that the
Administrator had only undertaken a preliminary exercise and that the final
decision would be taken by the Electoral Officer. He further submitted that
the exercise was carried out under Rule 10(5) of the National Sports
Governance Rules, 2026.
5. A careful reading of Rule 10(5) of the Rules of 2026 shows that the
electoral roll is to be prepared by the Electoral Officer, and his decision is
statutorily declared to be final and binding in respect of inclusion or non-
inclusion of any person. In the present case, the Electoral Officer was
appointed on 17.03.2026, before the impugned communication. Despite this,
the Administrator, on 20.04.2026, undertook the scrutiny of the nominations
and declared the petitioners' representatives as ineligible. This Court finds
that the Administrator has, therefore, performed the functions that belong
exclusively to the Electoral Officer under the statutory scheme.
1
6. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor is well recognised and founded
on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute confers a power to do an act
and lays down the method in which that power must be exercised, it
necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that
which has been prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in
2
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh , holding that if this were not so,
the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted. To the same
effect is the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express

1
(1876) 1 Ch D 426
2
AIR 1964 SC 358
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
10:05:39

mention of one thing excludes all others). Rule 10(5) of the Rules of 2026
vests the power to prepare the electoral roll and decide on inclusion or
exclusion in the Electoral Officer. The vesting of this power in the Electoral
Officer necessarily implies its exclusion from the Administrator. The Court,
therefore, finds that the Administrator has performed the functions of the
Electoral Officer, which the law does not permit.
7. The entitlement of the petitioners and their eligibility ought to have
been considered by the Electoral Officer. It remains undisputed as has
already been noted that the Electoral Officer had already been appointed.
The Court, thus, finds that the petitioners’ eligibility/ non-eligibility will
have to be considered by the duly appointed Electoral Officer.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned communication dated
20.04.2026 stands set aside. Accordingly, the instant petitions stand
disposed of.
9. Liberty is granted to the Electoral Officer to undertake the necessary
exercise in accordance with extant rules and regulations and thereafter, to
pass appropriate orders.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 27, 2026
Nc


Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
10:05:39