Union Directed to Constitute Ad-Hoc Committee for Taekwondo Governance Amidst Persistent Non-Compliance With Sports Code

The Petitioners, State-level Taekwondo associations, challenged the continued involvement of Respondent No. 3 (Mr. Namdev Shirgaonkar) in the administration of Taekwondo at the national level

Historically, the Union of India (UOI) derecognized the Taekwondo Federation of India (TFI) in 2015 for non-compliance with the National Sports Development Code, 2011 ("Sports Code")

In 2018, an Ad-hoc Committee, chaired by Respondent No. 3, was formed to create a new body, "India Taekwondo" (IT)

While IT was granted provisional affiliation by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), allegations of ethical violations arose against Respondent No. 3. An IOA Ethics Commission report dated 22.02.2022 found him guilty of violating ethics rules and recommended his removal

Despite this and subsequent litigation setting aside IT’s status as a National Sports Federation (NSF), Respondent No. 3 continued to lead IT, and the IOA failed to act on the Ethics Commission's findings

1. Whether the continued involvement of Respondent No. 3 in the administration of Taekwondo is permissible given the findings of the Ethics Commission and the conditions of the IOA

2. Whether the court should intervene to appoint an Ad-hoc Committee/Administrator due to the governance vacuum created by the non-recognition of a suitable NSF

The Court primarily applied the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011, which serves as the sine qua non for granting NSF status and access to public benefits

The Court relied on the principle established in Rahul Mehra v. Union of India, which mandates strict adherence to the Sports Code and good governance practices to ensure fairness and legitimacy in sports administration

The court emphasized the primary obligation of NSFs toward athletes' welfare over the interests of office bearers, as articulated in Narinder Batra v. UOI

The Court reasoned that a governance vacuum exists because neither TFI nor IT currently meets the Sports Code requirements for NSF recognition

The Court criticized the IOA’s inaction regarding the Ethics Commission's report, noting that Respondent No. 3 remained in power despite being found guilty of ethical violations and violating the IOA’s own condition that Ad-hoc Committee members should not lead the newly formed body

The Court observed that Respondent No. 3’s seven-year tenure without valid democratic credentials and IT’s parallel selection processes (ignoring the Union’s direction that the Sports Authority of India handle trials) were detrimental to athletes

The Court highlighed that the Sports Code must be enforced strictly to prevent the misappropriation of public funds and to protect the self-esteem and training of sportspersons

The Court directed the Union of India to constitute an Ad-hoc Committee within fifteen days to perform the functions of an NSF until a suitable body is recognized. It further ordered that any future application by IT for NSF status must be scrutinized for Sports Code compliance and must account for the Ethics Commission’s findings against Respondent No. 3.