Delhi HC orders stay on IOA ad hoc committee forming new national sports association for Ski and Snowboard India
The Delhi High Court has intervened in the matter of Ski and Snowboard India. The court has restrained the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) ad-hoc committee. The committee was planning to form a new national sports association. Justice Sachin Datta issued the interim order. The court observed that the ad-hoc committee's actions exceeded its authority.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The Delhi High Court has in an interim order directed the Indian Olympic Association ad-hoc committee overseeing the affairs of Ski and Snowboard India to not take any steps on the formation of a new national sports association Justice Sachin Datta said the ad-hoc committee seeking to create a new national sports association was prima facie "way beyond the scope of authority" of the IOA and ordered a stay till the next hearing on July 8.The judge passed the order as it issued notice on the application by Ski and Snowboard India (SSI).SSI had approached the court against a notice issued by the ad hoc committee on May 6 to the affiliated state associations inviting them for the 'First General Meeting for Registration and Election of the New National Sports Association (NSA) for Ski and Snowboard India'.In the order passed on May 23, the court granted time to the counsel for the IOA to state whether there was any provision in the IOA constitution which authorised the IOA or its ad-hoc committee to act in this manner, and sought replies from the IOA and Centre."In the present case, not only has an 'Ad-hoc Committee' been constituted, the said Committee is seeking to create a 'new NSA' out of the petitioner. Prima facie, this is way beyond the scope of authority of the IOA," the court said."In the circumstances, till the next date of hearing, the Ad-hoc Committee constituted vide office order 13.10.2023, shall refrain from taking any steps pursuant to the aforesaid letter / notice dated 06.05.2025," the court ordered.The court also noted that the order constituting the ad-hoc committee on October 13, 2023 could not be construed as conferring authority on the committee to create a new body and requiring entities affiliated to the petitioner to participate in the process.Prima facie, in the guise of appointing an ad-hoc committee to manage the affairs of the petitioner, it is impermissible to change the juristic nature and foundational character of the society, it added.The application by Ski and Snowboard India, represented by counsel Neha Singh, was part of its petition challenging the constitution of the ad-hoc committee to take over its affairs.Aaccording to the petitioner, the ad-hoc committee was formed without any show cause notice to the body and after October 2023, the petitioner wrote to the IOA and the Centre on several occasions for redressal of its grievances.The petitioner said the formation of the ad-hoc committee was ordered in a unilateral, illegal and arbitrary manner, in grave violation of natural Justice and the Sports Code.It was stated that the petitioner was not intimated about or given any show-cause notice or hearing with respect to any alleged complaints which led to the decision to form the ad-hoc committee to manage its affairs.The petition further said the IOA president passed the direction without consulting the executive committee as per the IOA Constitution.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
High court strikes down Punjab formula for premature release of prisoners
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that parole must be deducted from the total sentence, including remission, and not from the actual sentence, which covers only the time spent in custody while considering eligibility for premature release of prisoners. Setting aside the Punjab government's October 2024 order denying life convict Rupinder Singh's release, the court directed a fresh assessment of his case within four weeks. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, who delivered the ruling on May 29, also struck down the state's 2020 formula that excluded parole from the actual sentence. 'The formula prescribed in meeting dated 16.07.2020 is held to be invalid, being in direct contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1962… It is directed that the parole period shall only be subtracted from the total sentence and not from the actual sentence,' the court said. The court found the state's formula—actual custody during undertrial plus custody post-conviction, minus the parole period—lacked legal backing and contradicted the Punjab Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Section 3(3) of the Act states: 'The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.' Interpreting this, Justice Brar clarified, 'Actual sentence must be interpreted to mean the real time spent by a prisoner behind bars. and therefore, has two parts only i.e. (i) Actual time undergone in custody as an undertrial and (ii) Actual time undergone as a convict. Thus, the quantum of actual sentence is a matter of fact, a constant number…Total sentence, for the purpose of premature release, would include the actual sentence undergone by the prisoner and the remission earned by him.' The court held that Singh's case must be considered under the 1991 premature release policy, which requires 10 years of actual imprisonment and 14 years, including remission. Citing Raj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024(9) SCC 598, the court said, 'The State having formulated Rules and a Standing Policy for deciding cases of premature release, it is bound by its own formulations of law… It must strictly abide by the terms of its policies bearing in mind the fundamental principle of law that each case for premature release has to be decided on the basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of the conviction.' The court also referred to Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 504, noting, 'Ordinarily, the period of temporary release of a prisoner on parole needs to be counted towards the total period of detention, but this condition can be curtailed by legislative act, rules, instructions or terms of the grant of parole.' As no such legal change had been made, the court said Section 3(3) remained applicable. Rupinder Singh was convicted of murder on August 11, 2014, by the Sessions Court in Hoshiarpur under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction was upheld by the high court on October 3, 2019, and by the Supreme Court on November 22, 2019. Seeking premature release under the 1991 policy, Singh's case was considered by the court on January 16, 2024. The state later challenged this, and on March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed it to file a review petition. The key issue was whether over three years of Singh's parole should be deducted from his actual time served or from the total sentence. The state's 2020 clarification favoured the former, delaying his eligibility. Singh's lawyers, Nandan Jindal and Tushar Sabherwal, argued that the 2020 clarification was applied retrospectively and violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. They cited Jai Kishan @ Bhola vs. State of Punjab (2022) and Baljeet Singh @ Rangi vs. State of Punjab (2022). Deputy Advocate General Pardeep Bajaj, appearing for the state, relied on Rohan Dhungat vs. State of Goa (2023 AIR SC 265), but the court held it was not applicable due to differences in state laws. Justice Brar noted, 'The objective behind the Act of 1962 is humanitarian in nature… Ensuring that the incarcerated have healthy roots in the society greatly assists in their rehabilitation and reintegration.'
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
2 Shifts Create "Arbitrariness": Supreme Court On NEET-PG 2025 Exam Schedule
NEET PG Supreme Court hearing: The Supreme Court has directed that National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), a national-level entrance exam for admission to undergraduate medical courses, should be conducted in one shift instead of two. The top court was hearing a petition challenging a notification on holding NEET-PG 2025 examination in two shifts. The court said that holding the exam in two shifts "creates arbitrariness" and directed National Testing Agency (NTA) to make arrangements for holding the exam in one shift. The NEET-PG exam is scheduled to be held on June 15. "The question papers in two shifts can never be of the same difficulty level. Last year, it (NEET-PG 2024) may have been held in two shifts in the facts and circumstances of that stage. But the examining body ought to have considered making arrangements for holding the examination in one shift," the bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath, and also comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and N V Anjaria, observed while giving the judgement. It asked the NTA to ensure complete transparency in holding the exam. The result of the computer-based exam is expected to be declared on July 15. The bench had on May 5 sought a response from the NBE, National Medical Council, and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on the plea. Recently, the top court delivered a verdict issuing a slew of directions to stop seat-blocking in NEET-PG counselling and directed publication of raw scores, answer keys and normalisation formulae of the exam. The plea, challenging the conduct of NEET-PG exam in two shifts, said it has the potential for unfairness due to varying difficulty levels between shifts. It was filed by one Aditi and others.
India Gazette
4 hours ago
- India Gazette
Sadhguru seeks court protection against AI-driven misuse of his identity
ANI 30 May 2025, 13:10 GMT+10 New Delhi [India], May 30 (ANI): Spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev has approached the Delhi High Court, seeking protection of his personality rights against unauthorised use of his name and image by various websites employing artificial intelligence. During the hearing before the bench of Justice Saurabh Benarjee, it was argued that his identity was being exploited to promote products fraudulently, prompting requests for takedown orders. 'My name is being exploited to sell products--one such example is the book Garbh Yatra (on pregnancy), which features my image on its cover. People are blindly trusting these offerings because of my reputation, making this a clear case of fraud. These entities are leveraging AI to deceive the public,' he argued. The counsel representing Google submitted that affected parties must report specific URLs to intermediaries before any action can be taken. After a brief hearing, the bench stated that it would issue an interim order on the matter soon. In March this year, the Delhi High Court directed the removal of videos and content published by a YouTuber against spiritual leader Sadhguru's Isha Foundation from online platforms. While issuing the order, the court emphasised that reputation is an essential aspect of an individual's dignity. It also underscored the need to balance freedom of speech and expression with the right to reputation. (ANI)
