Facts
The Appellants sought review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII CPC of the Delhi High Court’s consent order dated 18.06.2026 in LPA Nos. 447/2026 and 442/2026.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1The earlier order created an interim mechanism for amending the All India Tennis Association’s (“AITA”) Constitution/Bye-Laws in conformity with the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (“Sports Act”) and the National Sports Governance (National Sports Bodies) Rules, 2026 (“Sports Governance Rules”), followed by elections to the AITA Executive Committee by 30.09.2026.
Source reference: pp.1–3, paras. 2–3Under the mechanism, the elected AITA Executive Committee was required to ensure that affiliated State Tennis Associations complied with the Sports Act, the Sports Governance Rules and applicable International Charters by 31.12.2026.
Source reference: p.3, para. 3(viii)The Appellants sought only to reverse this sequence, contending that State Associations should first amend their bye-laws and conduct elections in compliance with the applicable legal framework before elections to the AITA Executive Committee were held.
Source reference: p.4, para. 4; p.10, para. 9The AITA opposed the review, arguing that the order was consent-based and disclosed no error apparent on the face of the record.
Source reference: pp.7–9, paras. 6.1–6.6Issues
1. Whether the Appellants established a ground for review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC so as to modify the sequence prescribed in the consent order dated 18.06.2026
Source reference: p.10, paras. 8–92. Whether elections to the AITA Executive Committee were required to be deferred until all affiliated State Associations had amended their bye-laws and conducted elections in compliance with the Sports Act, the Sports Governance Rules and applicable International Charters
Source reference: pp.10–14, paras. 10–183. Whether Section 15 of the Sports Act and Rule 18 of the Sports Governance Rules imposed a prior and time-bound obligation on State Associations, such that the AITA’s elections could not take place before their compliance
Source reference: pp.10–13, paras. 10–14Law Applied
The Court applied Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, under which review is confined to discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or a mistake/error apparent on the face of the record; review cannot operate as an appeal or rehearing on merits.
Source reference: p.10, para. 8Section 15 of the Sports Act requires a recognised sports organisation to ensure that its voting members and affiliate units comply with applicable International Charters and Statutes and with the Sports Act and subordinate rules.
Source reference: p.10, para. 10Rule 18 of the Sports Governance Rules specifically requires every National Sports Body to amend its bye-laws within six months to conform to the Sports Act, with a possible relaxation of up to twelve months.
Source reference: pp.10–12, paras. 10–11The Court also relied on Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42, and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, for the limited scope of review.
Source reference: p.8, para. 6.2The Court also relied on AIFF v. Rahul Mehra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2020, and BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2018) 9 SCC 624, regarding the need for State and local sporting bodies to conform to the parent National Sports Federation, while finding that those decisions did not require the National Sports Body to await compliance by every State Association before conducting its own elections.
Source reference: pp.13–14, paras. 17–18Reasoning
The Court held that the Appellants’ proposed modification was not an error apparent on the face of the record but an attempt to re-agitate the merits and alter a mechanism to which they had expressly consented.
Source reference: pp.10, 14–15, paras. 8, 19–20On statutory interpretation, Rule 18 expressly imposed the six-month bye-law-amendment obligation on National Sports Bodies and did not prescribe a corresponding deadline for Affiliate Units or Voting Members; the Court declined to add an obligation that the legislature had omitted.
Source reference: pp.11–12, para. 11Section 15 required the AITA to “ensure” subsequent compliance by its affiliates but prescribed no sequence or deadline requiring such compliance before the AITA itself became compliant or conducted elections.
Source reference: p.12, paras. 12–14Given the Court-mandated timelines and the risk of the AITA’s de-recognition, the logical and workable sequence was for the AITA first to amend its bye-laws and conduct elections, after which its elected Executive Committee would ensure compliance by the State Associations by 31.12.2026.
Source reference: pp.12–14, paras. 14–18Although conformity by State Associations with the parent federation’s standards was desirable, the cited Supreme Court authorities did not establish that such conformity had to precede elections to the AITA Executive Committee.
Source reference: p.14, para. 17Holding
The Court answered the issues against the Appellants.
It held that no new matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and that the consent-based interim mechanism could not be varied through review.
Source reference: pp.14–15, paras. 19–20The AITA was therefore permitted to proceed with amendment of its Constitution/Bye-Laws and conduct elections to its Executive Committee by 30.09.2026, without awaiting prior amendment and elections by all affiliated State Associations.
Source reference: pp.3, 13–14, paras. 3(vii)–(viii), 18The elected Executive Committee would thereafter ensure that the State Associations complied with the Sports Act, the Sports Governance Rules and applicable International Charters by 31.12.2026.
Source reference: pp.3, 13–14, paras. 3(vii)–(viii), 18Review Petition No. 312/2026 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p.15, para. 21Original Court PDF
Somdev Kishore DevvarmanvsUnion Of India
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in