The IOA in a bind as it gets ready to welcome IOC Chief

Two-part piece on the anomalies in the Olympic Movement in India

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) President, Thomas Bach, is scheduled to visit New Delhi this week.

While there is a lot of enthusiasm among the sports fraternity and the media as the IOC chief meets Prime Minister Narendra Modi on April 27, in the light of speculation about India bidding for the 2024 Olympic Games, what could also be of significance could be his meeting with the officials of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) at a time when the National Olympic Committee (NOC) and the National Sports Federations (NSFs) have increasingly felt uncomfortable in following government regulations and guidelines. 

Will the IOC chief be able to take up some of the issues related to the Olympic Movement in India with the Prime Minister when he calls on the latter apart from pleading for a better environment for sports in the country?

Since the IOC itself advocates ‘principles of good governance’ and adheres to strict norms when it comes to tenure, it is doubtful to see Bach intervening on behalf of the IOA on the tenure guidelines. Though there are grumblings, the tenure guidelines have been accepted by all, whether willingly or out of sheer necessity to bow to Government directives.

Troublesome issues

Still, there could be other points pertaining to the Government-NOC relations which may get Bach’s attention.

The battle between the IOA and the Government over the tenure guideline is old, starting way back in 1975. Today, the modified guidelines that are part of the National Sports Development Code, have further backing from the courts, making things that much more difficult for the IOA and the NSFs.

The IOC had suspended the IOA in December, 2012 alleging “Government interference” and violation of the provisions in the Olympic Charter. The IOC lifted the suspension in February, 2014.

During the intervening period, the Union Sports Ministry including the then Sports Minister, Jitendra Singh, the IOA and the NSFs had discussions with the IOC in Lausanne before a “comeback formula” was thrashed out. The NSFs, by then, had bowed to the diktats of the Government but a few irritants remained.

Neither the IOC nor the Government gave much thought to these points though the ministry was keen to ensure that the voting structure in the IOA was changed. The IOC, initially insistent on effecting a change seemed to have given up in 2011 when it approved, for the first time in the history of the IOA, the latter's constitution that provided for voting rights to the State Olympic Associations.

This issue along with a few others have come back now to haunt the IOA in yet another writ petition filed by Rahul Mehra, lawyer and sports reforms activist.

The National Sports Development Code of India, notified on January 31, 2011, is a combination of the Government guidelines of 1975, 1988, 1997 and 2001, plus a series of Government notifications, given further teeth by a modification of the tenure guidelines in May 2010.

The IOA and the NSFs have been arguing that the code was too much of a threat to their autonomy, too intrusive and did not have the necessary legislative approval. The Delhi High Court has ruled otherwise, not just in one case but several cases.

Even as Rahul Mehra engaged the NSFs in a series of court battles, the IOA questioned the legality of the Sports Code in a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court. It was dismissed in May, 2014.

The IOA had contended that the Sports Code was beyond the executive powers of the Government, that the Parilament did not possess legislative powers to enact a law in this regard and that the provisions of the code were violative of the IOA’s rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 (1) (c)  and 21 of the Constitution.

On a petition from Rahul Mehra, the Delhi High Court directed the Union Government, on March 20, 2015 to indicate the “proper course of action” regarding the issue of several breaches of rules and convention in the constitution and elections to the IOA as pointed out by the petitioner.

The petitioner’s plea emanated from the apparent inaction of the government following an earlier order of the court.

Advisory or direction to IOA?

The court also asked the ministry to see whether it wished to issue an advisory or direction to the IOA in this matter. It also sought an ‘action taken’ report on the desirability and necessity of review of the sports code as asked by the court in an earlier order dated 22 Aug, 2014.

One of the major issues that had not been resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned had been the voting rights enjoyed by the State Olympic associations in the IOA.

There is no provision in the Olympic Charter for such an arrangement. The IOC had repeatedly pointed this out and in 2010, at a meeting in Lausanne, among representatives of the Government headed by the then Joint Secretary, Sports Ministry, Injeti Srinivas, currently Director-General, Sports Authority of India, IOA and the IOC, many of the issues including the voting structure in the IOA seemed to have been sorted out.

The Ranchi somersault

There was consensus among the IOA members prior to its General Assembly meeting in Ranchi in 2011 that only the NSFs would have voting rights within the IOA and the State associations would be retained as Associate members without voting rights.

But things went haywire on the eve of the meeting and the constitution amendments carried out the next day did not reflect the ‘truce’ that was thrashed out at Lausanne nor the requirements under the Olympic Charter.

The IOA constitution underwent several changes after Ranchi, the last ones at the instance of the IOC to enable the IOA to return to the Olympic fold following the suspension by the IOC.

Today the NSFs whose sport are included not just in the Olympic Games but also in the Asian Games and Commonwealth Games and the indigenous sport of kho kho get three votes each in the IOA General Assembly. The State Olympic Associations along with Union Territories with Legislative Assemblies and the Services Sports Control Board have two votes each. The IOC member in India (there is none at the moment) and the other Union Territories have one vote each. Two Athletes Commission members have one vote each. (It is not clear who elects the members of the Athletes Commission, but that is a different topic that one can come to at a later stage.)

Though it has been claimed that the National Federations governing Olympic sport would have the majority in matters related to Olympics, the rules have continued to provide voting rights to State Olympic associations, obviously with an eye on elections to the IOA.

Voting rights for State Olympic associations

This is something the Government had been objecting to though it has not taken any action to get this rectified.

This is where the Rahul Mehra petition and the High Court order of March 20 last comes in.

The court had directed the Government in its order of 19 December, 2013 to explain, among other things, why the IOA Executive Council exceeded 20 members against IOC rules, and had a provision for 32 members in the Council, why the general body contained as many as 184 members as against a stipulation of 110-115 members and why State Olympic associations should be allowed to participate in the elections to the IOA while prima facie these bodies did not have any role to play.

The court also wanted the government to state why the restrictive clause about elections to the Executive Council of the IOA was allowed to be retained allowing a virtual monopoly of a few people in the decision-making process and preventing the infusion of fresh representative especially meritorious sportspersons.

(to be continued)