Tweet
A day after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Asian body described the sports ministry's recent notification on limiting the terms of sports administrators as a violation of the Olympic Charter, the Centre told the Delhi High Court that the decision was taken on the basis of this charter and that they were committed to implement it.
"We have gone by the standards of the Olympic Charter and we are committed to put them in practice," the counsel for the Centre told the Bench, which is adjudicating a PIL over fixing the tenure of the sports administrators and more accountability in the functioning of national sports bodies.
Suresh Kalmadi & Co. had received letters of support from the IOC and the Asian body on Tuesday. IOA secretary general Randhir Singh, who is also India's representative at the world body, had said that the government's directive might invite potential sanctions, including the suspension of the country's membership with the IOC.
As per an official communication from the IOC, the number of terms of the office-bearers and a potential age limit for the members of the NOC (national Olympic committee, in this case the IOA) or the National Sports Federations had to be decided by the respective organisations and any action taken by an external body in these matters could be viewed as a violation of the principle of autonomy expressed in the Olympic Charter.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General AS Chandhiok, however, remained unfazed by these contentions and submitted before a Bench headed by acting Chief Justice Madan B Lokur that all decisions were based on the Olympic Charter and the regulations made by the sports ministry in 1975.
"The regulation in 1975 that limited the tenure of the chiefs of the sports federations were put in abeyance in 2002. But by an order dated May 1, 2010, they have been implemented as a decision. The IOC set the tenure limit of 12 years and an age limit of 70 for the president, and that is what our regulation also states," Chadhiok said.
Other issues
Appearing for petitioner Rahul Mehra, advocate Prashant Bhushan drew the attention of the court towards the fact that though the ministry had taken a decision regarding the tenure, several other guidelines still remained to be implemented. "One of the guidelines states that at least 25 per cent of the members of a sports federation have to be sportspersons. The reality, however, is completely different," Bhushan said.
Chandhiok accepted that the guideline was never put in abeyance and had to be made operational.
"When you (Centre) say that the regulation was not in abeyance, it means you have to execute it. You cannot sit idle after merely accepting that the guideline was never on hold. Other guidelines should also be implemented" the Bench remarked.
Bhushan further requested the court to look into another aspect of his petition whereby an independent electoral college is required to be created, free from the control of the IOA. "The IOA decides the composition of the electoral college that shall be voting for the election of the IOA and other federations and then it also provides accreditation to the sporting bodies. There must be an independent body on the lines of the Election Commission to carry out these functions," the counsel argued.
The matter, however, could not proceed further as the Centre sought a day's time to submit the affidavit on the issue.
Powered by WizardRSS | Full Text RSS Feeds
