Maharashtra Archery Association vs Rahul Mehra and Ors.

HELD: 1. The core issue to be answered in the present proceedings is about the purport of the order passed by this Court on 4th December, 2017. The background in which the said order came to be passed after hearing the parties, leaves no manner of doubt that it had modified the impugned order of the High Court dated 10th August, 2017. Further, the contentious issues regarding the proposed amendment in the Constitution stood answered to that extent. In that, this Court passed a peremptory order not only for approving the proposed amendments, as noted in the order dated 4 th December, 2017, but also directed the Administrator to conduct elections in consonance thereto within a period of four weeks, after incorporating the amendments within one week from the date of the order. That was the limited mandate given to the Administrator. Indeed, this Court had given liberty to the Administrator to seek clarification or directions if and when necessary. That liberty, however, by no stretch of imagination could be mistaken as authorising the Administrator to carry out amendments in the Constitution beyond the four amendments referred to in the order dated 4th December, 2017, much less to do so unilaterally without any prior notice to all the stakeholders and due deliberations with them as mandated by the Constitution of the Archery Association of India (AAI). In any case, any further amendments to the Constitution could be incorporated only after taking prior permission of this Court which was still in seisen of the matter. The Administrator was also ill-advised not to seek extension of time for completion of election process, which was to be completed not later than five weeks from 4 th December, 2017. [Para 12] [382-E-H; 383-A-B]

2. The Administrator, however, merely filed a compliance report on 24 th September, 2018, in the Registry of this Court without attempting even once to invite the attention of this Court thereto. The Administrator has also filed a further report in terms of the order dated 28th March, 2019. On perusal of the said reports, it can be accepted that the steps taken by the Administrator were under a mistaken belief - that he had the authority to proceed in the manner that he did and including to amend the Constitution beyond the four amendments referred to in the order dated 4th December, 2017. It is not a case of defiance or disobedience of the Court’s order as such. [Para 13] [383-E-F]

3. The Administrator could have taken only such steps as were permitted by this Court vide order dated 4th December, 2017, in their letter and spirit. Indisputably, the additional amendments incorporated by the Administrator have resulted in denial of right to represent in and contest elections of the AAI for the existing members. Even the direction given by the High Court whilst appointing the Administrator vide the impugned judgment, in no way gave authority to the Administrator to amend the Constitution, but was limited to conduct elections on the basis of the Constitution as it stood then. As ordered by the High Court, it was for the newly elected body to take steps in the right earnest to amend the Constitution to bring it in line with the National Sports Code on specified matters and then to conduct fresh elections on the basis of such amended Constitution. Thus. the Constitution could be amended only in accordance with law, which means by the elected body af ter interacting with all the stakeholders and members. The Administrator had no power to amend the Constitution, much less unilaterally, except for the four amendments approved by this Court, for which no further formality was required to be undertaken. The Administrator was obliged to conduct elections on the basis of such amended Constitution in terms of the order of this Court dated 4 th December, 2017. No more and no less. [Para 15] [384-C-F]

4. The right to form an Association included the right to its continuance and any law altering the composition of the Association compulsorily will be a breach of the right to form the Association. Thus understood, the steps taken by the Administrator beyond the scope of the authority bestowed upon him in terms of the order of this Court dated 4th December, 2017, cannot be validated by the Court but must be treated as non est in law. It would have been a different matter if the Administrator had presented the additional amendments before this Court and invited this Court to approve the same after hearing the concerned parties. [Para 17] [385-F-G]

Smt. Damyanti Naranga v. The Union of India and Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 678 : [1971] 3 SCR 840 – followed.

G.K. Ghose and Anr. v. E.X. Joseph (1963) Supp. 3 SCR 789 – relied on.

5. The further amendments to the Constitution could be effected only in the manner provided by the Constitution of the AAI including in terms of the order dated 4th December, 2017. It is thus not necessary for the Court to examine as to whether, in fact, there was any deviation or not from the dispensation predicated in the National Sports Code. [Para 18] [386-A-B]

Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors. (2016) 8SCC 535 : [2016] 8 SCR 606 – held inapplicable.

6. All the steps taken by the Administrator, including the elections conducted by him on the basis of the Constitution (as amended by him), will have to be treated as null and void and non est in law. The parties will have to be relegated to the position as on 4th December, 2017, consequent to incorporation of the four amendments approved in terms of the same order. After carrying out those four amendments in the Constitution, the election will have to be conducted to constitute the new body, which would then take steps to introduce further amendments to the Constitution, if so required, to bring it in line with the National Sports Code, after giving an opportunity to all concerned. Only after the amendments are accepted and approved, fresh elections be conducted for constituting a new body in conformity with such duly amended Constitution. [Para 19] [386-C-E]

7. The controversy cannot be adjudicated on the basis of perception of the World Archery body. Similarly, the scope of the present proceedings cannot be expanded as the main writ petition is still pending before the High Court, where all issues can be deliberated and answered appropriately. While doing so, the High Court, no doubt, would be guided by the exposition in *Sheela Barse case and **Board of Control for Cricket in India case. [Para 20] [386-F-G]

*Sheela Barse case v. Union of India and Ors. (1988)

4 SCC 226 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 295 ; K. Murugan v. Fencing Association of India, Jabalpur and Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 412 : [2016] 6 SCR 635; **Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 251 : [2015] 1 SCR 165 – referred to.

8. The Constitution of AAI is amended only to the extent of four amendments referred to in the order dated 4th December, 2017, treating it as amended by an order of this Court, without requiring to comply with any other formality. Rest of the amendments are declared as null and void and non est in law. The same, at best, may be pursued as a proposal to be considered after the newly elected body initiates a procedure for carrying out further amendments to the Constitution of AAI as per law. [Para 22 (I)] [387-D-E]

9. All the steps taken by the Administrator on the basis of the Administrator’s Constitution, including the elections conducted on 22nd December, 2018, are null and void and non est in law. The High Court-appointed Administrator stands relieved in terms of this order. The elected body, in office, would continue to function hereafter as a Committee of Administrators appointed in terms of this order. This Committee is allowed to continue in office as nothing adverse has been brought to the notice of the Court for their continuation until the newly elected body takes over. However, the Committee shall discharge only routine and day-to-day activities and shall not take any policy decision or create new financial liability, until the newly elected body takes over. [Paras 22 (II) and (III)] [387-E-H]

10. The election for constituting the new elected body be completed by the aforementioned Committee appointed by this Court within four weeks from today and the election process must be conducted strictly in accordance with the Constitution as amended in terms of order dated 4 th December, 2017. [Para 22(IV)] [388-B]