All India Football Federation vs. Churchill Brothers Sports Club Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

$~254 & 255
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 28.04.2026
% LPA 321/2026 & CM APPLs. 28168-70/2026
ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Tanmaya Mehta with Ms.Aashita
Khanna, Mr.Neil M Goswami,
Mr.Vidushpat Singhania, Mr.Ritwik
Prakash, Ms.Aanya Agarwal, Advs.

versus

CHURCHILL BROTHERS SPORTS CLUB PVT. LTD. & ANR.
......Respondents
Through: Mr.Ravi Prakash, Sr.Adv. with
Ms.Niharika Tiwari and Mr.Ranjeet
Pawar, Advs. for R-1.

255
% LPA 322/2026 & CM APPLs. 28175-77/2026
ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Tanmaya Mehta with Ms.Aashita
Khanna, Mr.Neil M Goswami,
Mr.Vidushpat Singhania, Mr.Ritwik
Prakash, Ms.Aanya Agarwal, Advs.

versus

CHURCHILL BROTHERS SPORTS CLUB PVT. LTD. & ORS.
......Respondents
Through: Mr.Ravi Prakash, Sr.Adv. with
Ms.Niharika Tiwari and Mr.Ranjeet
Pawar, Advs. for R-1.
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 1 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. ( ORAL )
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. Tanmaya Mehta and
Sh. Ravi Prakash, learned senior counsel representing the respondent no.1
and perused the record available before us on these appeals.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated
01.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 3981/2026 and
W.P.(C) 4064/2026, both have been heard together and are being decided by
the common judgment which follows:
3. Before adverting to the respective submissions made by learned
counsel representing the parties, we may note certain facts which are
essential for proper adjudication of the controversy involved in these
appeals.
4. The respondent no.1 instituted W.P.(C) 3981/2026 with the prayer to
set aside the proceedings in respect of representation dated 14.03.2026 and
to constitute an independent, neutral and impartial committee, preferably
under the supervision of a retired Judge of the High Court, to examine and
adjudicate the representation dated 14.03.2026 preferred by the respondent
no.1. Another prayer made in the writ petition was that a direction be issued
to the respondent no.2 in the Writ Petition that he shall not, directly or
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 2 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

indirectly, participate in or influence any proceedings, decisions or processes
relating to the representation preferred by the respondent no.1 or any subject
matter connected with the same.
5. W.P.(C) 4064/2026 was instituted by the respondent no.1 with the
prayer for setting aside the proceedings in respect of the representation dated
16.01.2026 with a further prayer to constitute an independent, neutral and
impartial committee, preferably under the supervision of retired Judge of a
High Court, to adjudicate the representation dated 16.01.2026 preferred by
the respondent no.1 and counter complaint filed by Inter Kashi FC.
6. Prior to instituting the aforesaid two writ petitions, the respondent
no.1 had filed a W.P.(C) 14408/2025 , which was disposed of by learned
Single Judge vide order dated 08.01.2026, whereby it was provided that the
respondent no.1 shall submit their comprehensive representations enclosing
all the documents, including earlier complaints, and on receipt of such
representations, the appellant will deal with the same after affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Court also directed the respondent
no.1 to pass a speaking order dealing with the grievances raised by the
parties. The learned Single Judge in his order dated 08.01.2026 further
observed that it will be open to the appellant to determine as to how the
complaints/representations will be decided.
7. It appears that in compliance of the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 14408/2025, the complaints/representations
were not decided by the appellant, which led to filing of CONT.CAS.(C)
357/2026. In the said contempt case, notices were ordered to be issued,
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 3 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

whereupon the Ethics and Dispute Resolution Committee (Ethics
Committee) was constituted by the appellant. The respondent no.1 appears
to have raised certain grievances against some of the members of the Ethics
Committee on account of alleged conflict of interest and therefore, it was
submitted by respondent no.1 before the learned Single Judge that such
members should not continue to be the part of the Ethics Committee which
was directed to decide the complaints/representations. It was also urged by
the respondent no.1 before the learned Single Judge that unless an
independent grievance redressal mechanism is in place to decide the
representations, appropriate decision may not be taken into the
complaints/representations preferred by the respondent no.1.

8. The Ethics Committee was, however, reconstituted and in place of one
Mr. Ranjit Kumar Pachnanda, against whom the allegations were made by
the respondent no.1 pertaining to conflict of interest, Mr. Justice (Retd.)
Shekhar Dhawan, a former Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, was
inducted into the Ethics Committee as its Chairperson along with Mr. Ayush
Jain, a practicing Advocate of this Court. Despite the aforesaid changes in
the constitution of the committee, the learned Single Judge by the impugned
order, appointed Ms. Justice (Retd.) Rekha Palli, a former Judge of this
Court as Chairperson of the Ethics Committee. Learned Single Judge
further provided in the impugned order that other members of the Ethics
Committee shall be (i) Mr. Akshay Makhija, Senior Advocate and (ii) Mr.
Ashok Tripathi, a retired Principal District & Sessions Judge. In addition to
these members, the Court directed that two additional members shall be
inducted in consultation with these three members i.e. (i) Ms. Justice (Retd.)
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 4 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

Rekha Palli, (ii) Mr. Akshay Makhija and (iii) Mr. Ashok Tripathi. Thus, as
a result of what has been provided by learned Single Judge in the impugned
order, the constitution of the Ethics Committee has been altered and in place
of the members who constituted the Ethics Committee in terms of the
Constitution of the appellant, some other members have been substituted in
terms of the directions issued vide impugned order.
9. It is this order dated 01.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge,
which is under challenge in these two appeals.
10. The appellant is the sole recognized National Sports Federation [NSF]
for the sport of football in the country duly recognized by the Ministry of
Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India. It is affiliated to Fédération
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), which is the apex level
international body governing the sport of football at global level. The
appellant is also affiliated to the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) and is
also an affiliate of Indian Olympic Association (IOA).
11. The appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860, affairs of which are governed by the Memorandum of
Association, its Bye-laws, Rules, Regulations and Constitution.
12. Article 45 of the Constitution of the appellant prescribes for Judicial
bodies. Article 45.1 prescribes 7 Judicial bodies of the appellant including
the Ethics Committee and Appeal Committee.
13. As per the provision of Clause 45.10 of the Constitution of the
appellant, the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson and other members of
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 5 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 6 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 7 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

the Chairperson of the Ethics Committee, by Ms. Justice (Retd.) Rekha Palli,
a former Judge of this Court. As per the impugned order, Sh. Ashok
Tripathi, a former Principal District & Sessions Judge has been retained as
Deputy Chairperson of the Ethics Committee. Mr.Akshay Makhija, Senior
Advocate, who was not part of the initial Ethics Committee as constituted by
the appellant, has also been ordered to be inducted as a member. Rest of the
two additional members have been ordered by the impugned judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge to be inducted as members of the Ethics
Committee in consultation with all the three members.
20. Having noted the facts in the brief as above, we now proceed to note
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
21. Impeaching the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2026 passed by
learned Single Judge, Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, learned counsel representing the
appellant, has submitted that that the primary grievance of the respondent
no.1 was against Mr.Ranjit Kumar Pachnanda, who has been replaced by a
retired Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Mr. Justice (Retd.)
Shekhar Dhawan and therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single
Judge to have reconstituted the Ethics Committee.
22. He has also stated that the appellant is an autonomous society, affairs
of which are necessarily governed by its own Constitution and Rules and
Regulations and unless and until the respondent no.1 is able to establish any
cogent and strong reason as to the constitution of the Ethics Committee
constituted by the appellant, it was legally not permissible for the learned
Single Judge to have inducted members of the choice of the Court.
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 8 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

23. Mr. Mehta has also argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in
law by taking up the functions of the appellant which otherwise the appellant
is entitled to discharge in terms of its Constitution and such interjection by
the Court amounts to eroding the autonomy of the appellant, which functions
in accordance with its Constitution and Rules and Regulations.
24. It has also been contended that even on facts no such cogent reason
can be deciphered from the available records that would impel the learned
Single Judge to substitute the members of the Ethics Committee by the
members suggested by the Court in place of the members which form the
Ethics Committee, which was constituted duly in terms of the Constitution
of the appellant by the appellant itself.
25. Our attention has also been drawn to certain observations made by
learned Single Judge in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment dated
01.04.2026, wherein learned Single Judge has clearly observed that, “It
would also not mean that the Court has assumed any malice or mala fide on
the part of the respondents (appellant herein) . This arrangement is made
without prejudice to the rights and contentions made by the parties”.
Learned counsel submits that once a finding of absence of malice or mala
fide was recorded by learned Single Judge, altering the constitution of the
Ethics Committee, as constituted by the appellant, was legally unwarranted.
26. He further states that in case the arrangement made by learned Single
Judge vide impugned judgment is allowed, that will not only erode the
autonomy of the appellant, which is a society registered under the Societies
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 9 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

Registration Act, but will also be against the Constitution of the appellant
society.
27. On the aforesaid courts, it has been urged by learned counsel for the
appellant that the impugned judgment and order dated 01.04.2026 passed by
learned Single Judge, which is under challenge herein, be set aside and the
Ethics Committee constituted by the appellant be permitted to proceed with
consideration and decision on the representation preferred by the respondent
no.1.
28. Opposing the appeal and defending the impugned judgment and order
dated 01.04.2026, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1, however, has
submitted that by constitution of the Ethics Committee in terms of the order
passed by learned Single Judge no prejudice is going to be caused to the
appellant and as such, no interference in the impugned order passed by
learned Single Judge is called for.
29. Drawing our attention to the representations/complaints made by the
respondent no.1, it has been argued by learned senior counsel for the
respondent no.1 that in fact the allegations against the President of the
appellant – federation regarding the manner in which he has been conducting
himself vis-à-vis the affairs of respondent no.1, learned Single Judge has
rightly ordered for reconstitution of the Ethics Committee. He has also
submitted that so far as the constitution of the Ethics Committee by the
appellant is concerned, the President in his capacity has been instrumental in
inducting the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and other members and
therefore, it is most likely that he may exercise his influence on the Ethics
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 10 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

Committee constituted by the appellant in case the
representations/complaints made by it are decided by the Ethics Committee
constituted by the appellant. Therefore, the submission is that since no
prejudice is going to be caused to the appellant in case the
representations/complaints made by the respondent no.1 are permitted to be
decided by the Ethics Committee to be constituted in terms of the impugned
judgment and order dated 01.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge, the
appeal ought not be entertained and, thus, is liable to be dismissed at its
threshold.
30. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
31. Learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated
01.04.2026 has directed for reconstitution of the Ethics Committee by
inducting the Chairperson and certain other members in place of the
Chairperson and members of the Ethics Committee that was constituted by
the appellant as per its Constitution.
32. The appellant, as observed above, is a society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is affiliated with the international
bodies, such as FIFA and AFC. It is also an affiliate of the IOA and is also
recognized as a NSF by the Government of India in the Ministry of Youth
Affairs and Sports as per the requirement of the National Sports
Development Code of India, 2011 or the National Sports Governance Act,
2025, as the case may be.
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 11 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

33. The appellant is autonomous in itself, affairs of which are to be
governed by its own Constitution, Memorandum of Association, Bye-laws
or Rules and Regulations, etc.
34. Right to form an association is a fundamental right enshrined in
Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution of India. It is only for registration and
other ancillary purposes of a society that Societies Registration Act, 1860
has been enacted.
35. As per Section 3 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, any seven or
more persons can form a society for any literary, scientific, or charitable
purpose, or for any such purpose described in Section 20 of the Act, simply
by subscribing their names to a Memorandum of Association and filing the
same with the Registrar of the Societies.
36. Under the Scheme of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, any such
society can get itself registered in the manner prescribed for the said purpose
under Section 3, with the Registrar of Societies. However, the Act, except
for providing certain statutory requirements such as furnishing the annual
list of managing body with the Registrar of Societies, does not contain any
such provision which, in any manner, may permit the Registrar or any other
authority of the State to interfere with the functions of a society or with the
manner in which a registered society performs its function. The purpose of
enacting the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was to make a provision for
improving the legal conditions of the societies as envisaged by the preamble
of the Act.
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 12 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

37. So far as the functioning of a registered society is concerned, the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 does not envisage any role of the Registrar
or any other government official, in fact, under the Act, not even any
supervisory role has been assigned to the Registrar or any other government
authority as to the functions discharged by the society concerned.
38. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, thus,
functions in accordance with its own Constitution, Bye-laws, Rules or
Regulations or Memorandum and Articles of Association. It is in this sense,
that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 enjoys
full autonomy so far as its affairs are concerned. As a matter of fact, the
only provision which we found in the Societies Registration Act, 1860
where the functions of the societies are somewhat fettered is Section 13 of
the Act, which prescribes a provision for dissolution of societies and
adjustment of their affairs. According to Section 13, in case of dissolution
of a society, necessary steps shall be taken for disposal and settlement of the
property of the society and also of the claims and liabilities according to the
rules of the society concerned and adjustment, after dissolution, of its affairs
is required to be referred to the Principal Court of original Civil jurisdiction
of the District in which the society is situated and on such reference the
Court shall make such order in the manner as it shall deem requisite.
39. Formation of a society is a voluntary act and such act to form an
association is protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India,
which is a fundamental right. In our opinion, the rules and regulations, as
may be framed by a society, form a contract amongst the members of the
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 13 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

society who form it, which are required to be registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. However, merely because of the requirement of
registration, such rules do not acquire any statutory character.
40. Having regard to the fundamental right available to every citizen
under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India as also the entire scheme
of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, what we conclude is that a registered
society is completely an autonomous body or association of persons, affairs
of which are to be necessarily governed by the Memorandum and Articles of
Association or Bye-laws or Rules and Regulations framed by the society
itself for the reason that the Memorandum/Articles of Association or the
Bye-laws or the Rules and Regulations framed or adopted by the members
of the society form a contract amongst its members to govern the affairs of
the society. In this view, in our considered opinion, any unwarranted or
uncalled for interference into the manner of governing the affairs of the
society will be legally impermissible, unless some law, statutory or
otherwise, permits such interference.
41. For the said reasons, in our opinion, it will be legally impermissible
for a Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to assume any function of a society, which is
otherwise required to be performed by the society itself under its own
Constitution or Bye-laws or Rules and Regulations or Memorandum/Articles
of Association.
42. Having observed as above, we, however, do not mean that even if
cogent reasons exist and the situation so calls for, while exercising the
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 14 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a
direction in the nature of the direction issued by learned Single Judge vide
impugned judgment and order dated 01.04.2026 is impermissible to be
issued. However, for making such a direction, there should exists very
strong and cogent reasons.
43. If we examine and consider the impugned judgment and order dated
01.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge on the anvil of the aforesaid
legal principles as mentioned by us in the foregoing paragraphs, what we
find is that the objection by the respondent no.1 was only against the
Chairperson of the Ethics Committee constituted by the appellant, namely
Mr.Ranjit Kumar Pachnanda. The Chairperson of the Ethics Committee,
Mr.Ranjit Kumar Pachnanda has already been replaced by none other than a
retired Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Mr. Justice (Retd.)
Shekhar Dhawan. Accordingly, whatever apprehension existed in the mind
of the respondent no.1, stood allayed once Mr.Pachnanda was replaced by
Mr. Justice (Retd.) Shekhar Dhawan, as Chairperson of the Ethics
Committee.
44. We may further opine that a remedy of appeal against the orders
passed by the Ethics Committee is available before the Appeal Committee
formed in terms of Article 47 of the Constitution of the appellant, which at
present is headed by a retired Judge of Hon’ble Supreme Court as its
Chairperson. The Appeal Committee also comprises of a retired Judge of
Punjab and Haryana High Court as its Deputy Chairperson and three
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 15 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 16 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

therefore, apprehension in the mind of the respondent no.1 appear to be
unfounded and without any basis.
48. Lastly, it was also contended on behalf of the respondent no.1 that
reconstitution of the Ethics Committee made by the appellant is in violation
of the Constitution of the appellant itself and therefore, subjecting the
representations made by it to be decided by such a committee, will not be
appropriate. In this regard, we may observe that before learned Single
Judge, there was no challenge by the respondent no.1 as to the reconstitution
of the Ethics Committee made by the appellant. Thus, this submission made
by the respondent no.1 also does not appeal to us, which merits rejection.
49. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find that no cogent and compelling
reasons existed which would have impelled, in our opinion, the learned
Single Judge to substitute the members of the Ethics Committee constituted
by the appellant – federation by the persons suggested by the learned Single
Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 01.04.2026.
50. In view of the discussions made and reasons given above, we find
ourselves unable to agree with the impugned judgment and order passed by
learned Single Judge and accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the
impugned judgment and order dated 01.04.2026 passed by learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) 3981/2026 and W.P.(C) 4064/2026, is set aside.
51. We, thus, direct that the representations/complaints of the respondent
no.1 shall be considered and decided by the Ethics Committee reconstituted
by the appellant – federation, in accordance with law and the extant rules, of
course, after affording adequate opportunity to respondent no. 1 of
LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 17 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41

presenting its case and also providing an opportunity of hearing to it, with
expedition, say, within a period of eight weeks from today.
52. The appeals and the pending applications stand disposed of.
53. There shall be no order as to costs.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ



TEJAS KARIA, J
APRIL 28, 2026
“shailndra”

LPA 321/2026 & LPA 322/2026 Page 18 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:30.04.2026
10:32:41