In their fight for autonomy and to be kept out from the ambit of the controversial Sports Bill proposed by the Centre, the Indian Olympic Association has taken its battle to Supreme Court alleging that Government interference in its activities is unconstitutional and violated the Olympic Charter.
The bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and C Nagappan issued notice to the Centre seeking response to the IOA petition. The petition was filed against a Delhi High Court order of May 9 last year which dismissed IOA’s claims of autonomy and instead directed the autonomous body registered as a society in 1927 to fall in line with the executive orders passed by the Government laying down term, tenure of office and manner for holding elections in IOA.
Calling this as interference in the operations of a private society tasked to sponsor Indian team in international Olympic events, IOA’s senior advocate Gopal Subramanium argued that the society is governed by its Memorandum of Rules on which executive orders of the Centre are not binding.
He further pointed out that Chapter IV of the Olympic Charter clearly States that National Olympic Committees such as IOA should have autonomy from any Government control. It was for this reason, IOA stated in its petition that International Olympics Committee failed to recognise the elections held by IOA in December 2012, as it was held as per the Sports Code 2011 introduced by the Government.
Even the game of sports has suffered due to the tiff between the IOA and Sports Ministry. At the Youth Asian Games held last year, the IOC refused to recognise Indian athletes as the official Indian team and no national anthem was played when young sportspersons took to the podium on winning medals.
There are 54 National Sports Federations in the country which select the team for international events and refer it to IOA for sponsorship. The Government recognises the 54 sports federations but had de-recognised the Archery Association of India in 2013 for its refusal to accept the National Sports Code.
On its part, the Government justifies its control over IOA claiming right over the assistance it provides to it by way of facilities and infrastructure to train and coach players, besides providing financial assistance for purchase of equipments required for such training.
IOA counters by saying that such assistance does not confer Government a right to meddle with the internal functions and affairs of the IOA. In any case, IOA claims that any financial assistance given by Centre is for sports and not for survival and functioning of the Olympic body.