Who gets to vote in IOA?

The IOA in a bind (part 2)

The Government has dithered over several issues despite clear directions from courts. Between 2010 and 2014 it diluted the government guidelines, made certain portions of the tenure guidelines rather confusing, and now finds itself unsure of taking on the IOA. The Delhi High Court has given it some more time.

In its order of 19 December, 2013, the Delhi High court noted that the Union’s affidavit mentioned the following:

“That the Union of India vide its letter N o.F.8-17/2009-SP.III Vol.II dated 23rd February, 2011(Annexure I) has already conveyed to the IOA as follows: -

(i) inclusion of State Olympic Associations as voting members is not in conformity with the Relevant Rule of the Olympic Charter which deals with the composition of NOC. State/UT Olympic Associations are to represent IOA at the State level and for discharging that function,

they need not get the voting rights.

(ii) IOA should be a confederation of NSFs dealing with Olympic Sports and not a confederation of its own affiliated and other sports bodies.

(iii) The Executive Council with 28 members is very large.

(iv) Clause VIII (a) of IOA‟s Constitution is very restrictive and all the members of the Society should be free to contest the elections for any post.

3. Government of India reiterates its stand as contained in para (2) above. Inclusion of any of these stipulations in the Code/Guidelines of the Government of India is a matter of decision to be taken in due course after careful consideration.

4. Regarding lack of uniformity in the number of votes given to different categories of voters, Government of India is of the view that the provisions contained in Rule 28 of IOC

Charter should be followed. As per this, voting majority of an NOC and of its executive body shall consist of the votes cast by the National Federations affiliated to the International Federations governing sports included in the programme of the Olympic Games or their representatives.

5. As regards the size of the General Body of IOA, the Government of India is of the view that it should be reasonable and IOA should not have much flexibility to add categories/members.

6. Regarding limiting age and tenure restrictions to 3 office bearers, it is stated that this was done as per the view that emerged following consultations. Government of India favours these restrictions to be followed in respect of all

office-bearers.

Non-Olympic sports get plum posts

Today the IOA is headed by Mr. N. Ramachandran, president of the World Squash Federation, and has Mr. Rajeev Mehta, president of the Kho Kho Federation of India as its Secretary-General. Squash is not a sports included in the Olympic Games programme, though it is an IOC-recognized sport, while kho kho is only an indigenous sport.

Does one have to say more on the topic of composition of the NOC?

Much of the ills that plague the IOA today can then be seen as self-imposed. Even as the NSFs want to show that they would follow government orders, guidelines, codes etc without any breach, for fear of being de-recognized and thus losing precious financial assistance and other benefits, the IOA has remained somewhat defiant.

And there are National Federations, too, that are either stymied by faction fights or contesting provisions of the government guidelines.

The credibility of the IOA had hit a low in 2012. It continues to be low. The courts have taken a dim view of the monopolistic structure of the IOA and the federations. They have time and again directed the Government to deal with these sports bodies effectively so that public funding is legitimized.

Said the Delhi High Court in its order in the IOA petition challenging the Sports Code in May, 2014:

“In the opinion of the Court, aid or recognition is not a one way street.

The Central Government‟s legitimate right to recognize these sporting

bodies, for the purpose of use of the expression “India” enabling national

sports teams sponsored by these NSFs and the IOA to in turn use that

appellation, carries with it, the right to insist that certain basic standards are followed.

“With the right to grant or withhold such recognition is also the

right to spell out conditions, for the grant of aid- as such is undoubtedly the case, because travel expenditure, and assistance for procurement of equipment would be aid (apart from use of state resources such as stadia,

customs duty waiver for importation of equipment, facilitation and coordination during international events etc). The figure mentioned on behalf

of the Central Government towards positive grants for use these last four

years for travel purposes alone was Rs. 435 crores.

“Considering that the NSF and IOA are free to use the national status conferred upon them by the recognition and garner revenue, in the form of endorsement, sponsorships, sale of event coverage rights to the media, etc, there cannot be two opinions about existence of an overriding public or state concerns that such bodies do not remain the preserve of the few, or worse, the moneyed and the powerful.”

The court rejected the IOA’s contentions. ““For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the petitioners’ contentions are rejected. The Court reiterates its conclusions that international sports and regulation of NSFs, and IOA, in respect of the matters which are the subject of these proceedings, falls within Entry 97 of the First List to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Central Government can insist upon adherence to these provisions, without the aid of legislation.

“It is also held that the Sports Code does not violate the freedom under Article

19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Neither are its provisions arbitrary. The tenure restrictions impugned in this case can and are insisted upon as a part of the public interest in efficient and fair administration of such NSFs.”

'Sports administration has reached depths'

The court also remarked about the state of Indian sports in its order.

“Sports administration in this country appears to have reached depths from where neither sporting bodies nor the State seem to care any longer for the successive generations’ sporting future. Reform is to be introduced urgently by the State. Sports administration appears to be mired in power play, where money, influence and chicanery play a dominant part and those who had participated in competitive sports at some stage are given token representation at best, or mostly marginalized.

“As the cliché goes, the state of sports is in a lockjaw where roughly 1.2 billion people have to rest content with a harvest of medals so meager as to be surpassed by just one individual like Michael Phelps. The London Olympic saw India notch up a tally of six medals. This averages to one medal for roughly every 207 million inhabitants. It is not without truth that the common perception that Karnam Malleswari, Col Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, Abhinav Bindra, Sushil Kumar Tehlan and Vijender Singh were driven for individual personal reasons to focus on competitive sports. Sport administration, the way it is run in India, through coteries, cabals, manipulations and intrigues, seems to discourage a vast majority of the population to devote itself to athletics, shooting, judo, table tennis, gymnastics, soccer, boxing, fencing and the like. Sports can be popularized and made successful, when those who genuinely feel the need to inspire and attract talent, and are themselves driven by inspiration, evolve policies that result in a range of sporting activities becoming as or even somewhat as rewarding as cricket.”

The order has been challenged by the IOA in the Supreme Court.

Court seeks clarity about action taken

In the meantime, in its order of March 20 last, the High Court, in the light of the previous order, said

"We have heard the parties. It is not clear as to whether Union

has taken any action or issued any advisory to the IOA in regard to

the above matters.

"Counsel for the IOA submits that this Court should not pass any

directions in this regard given that the SLP against the Division

Bench’s judgment in W.P.(C)2310/2012 is pending before the

Supreme Court. This Court does not propose to re-visit the issues

which it pronounced upon in its judgment dated 9.5.2014 in

W.P.(C)2310/2012. However, the petitioner’s argument that there is

lack of clarity in the Government’s affidavit appears to be well

founded given that the Union has indicated and relied upon a letter of

23.02.2011.

"In these circumstances, the Union shall indicate proper course of action - and whether it wishes to issue an advisory or direction to the IOA as the case may be. Such action of constituting the Committee if it chooses to do so shall be taken in a time bound manner and preferably within six weeks from today. The Union

shall file its affidavit in this regard within seven weeks.

The affidavit shall also indicate the action taken in regard to the orders of the Court dated 22.08.2014 with respect to desirability and necessity of review of the Sports Code which had been originally

framed as guidelines in 1975. List on 27th May, 2015."

Without going into the merits of the argument in favour of even contemplating an Olympic bid for 2024, considering the financial implications and the country’s standing in international sports, the IOA and the Government_and perhaps the IOC chief_should ask whether the atmosphere for the Olympic Movement in this country at the moment is conducive for such a bid.

(Concluded)