Representatives of State Associations need not be elected members of the specific nominating Association under TTFI MoA.

The Petitioner, a former national player, challenged the election of Respondent No. 2 (R-2) as Secretary General of the Table Tennis Federation of India (TTFI) held on 05.12.2022.

R-2 was nominated as a representative of the Assam Table Tennis Association (ATTA) while being an elected member (sportsperson) of the Maharashtra State Table Tennis Association (MSTTA).

R-2’s nomination was seconded by Mr. Harish Kakkar, a government servant who was later directed by the Union of India to demit office for exceeding tenure limits.

The Petitioner alleged that R-2's nomination violated Clause 17 of the TTFI Memorandum of Association (MoA) and the National Sports Development Code.

The petition was filed in 2024, nearly two years after the election.

1. Whether Clause 17 of the MoA requires a representative to be an elected member of the specific State Association they seek to represent.

2. Whether R-2 was ineligible due to the mandatory cooling-off period under the National Sports Code.

3. Whether the subsequent demitting of office by the seconder (Mr. Kakkar) invalidated R-2's original nomination.

4. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.

The Court applied the principle of literal interpretation of statutes as established in State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh, which mandates that courts cannot legislate under the guise of interpretation or add words to an unambiguous instrument.

It also applied the definition of "office bearer" under Annexure-XI of the National Sports Development Code, 2011, which restricts the term to President, Secretary, and Treasurer, excluding the post of "Vice-President" from cooling-off requirements.

Finally, the Court relied on Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. M. Meiyappan, affirming that the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised in cases of unexplained delay and laches.

The Court found that a literal reading of Clause 17 of the MoA requires a representative to be a "duly elected member of the Executive Committee of a State/UT Association," but notably lacks the requirement that the person must be a member of the nominating association.

Since R-2 was an elected member of MSTTA at the time of his nomination by ATTA, he satisfied the criteria.

Regarding the cooling-off period, the Court noted that R-2 had served as Vice-President of MSTTA, a role excluded from the definition of "office bearer" under the Sports Code; thus, no cooling-off was mandatory.

Regarding the seconder, the Court held that the Union's later advice to Mr. Kakkar to demit office did not retroactively invalidate his prior official acts.

Crucially, the Court observed that the Petitioner waited over a year to file the writ after the internal rejection of his objections, and since R-2's term expires in 2026, the "weighing of equities" favored maintaining the status quo.

The Court ruled that R-2 fulfilled the MoA requirements as an elected member of an executive body at the time of nomination.

The Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 due to the unexplained delay in approaching the Court after the 2022 elections. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.