New Delhi [India], February 4 : The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports' decision recognising the Indian Pickleball Association (IPA) as the National Sports Federation (NSF) for the sport of pickleball in India, holding that the grant of recognition and accompanying relaxations were policy decisions taken within the framework of the National Sports Development Code, 2011.
Dismissing the writ petition filed by the All India Pickleball Association (AIPA), Justice Sachin Datta observed that the Sports Code is a consolidated set of executive instructions and not a rigid or immutable statutory framework.
The Court emphasised that the Code must be applied with sensitivity to the nature and stage of development of a sport, particularly when dealing with nascent and emerging disciplines like pickleball.
The Court examined the relaxation clause introduced into the Sports Code in 2021, which empowers the government to relax certain conditions where necessary and expedient for the promotion of sports.
It noted that this clause had already been upheld in earlier judicial precedent and serves a practical purpose in addressing difficulties arising from mechanical application of the Code.
Justice Datta held that insisting on uniform and immediate compliance with all provisions of the Sports Code particularly those relating to long-standing district and state-level structures would be incongruous for emerging sports. Treating nascent sports at par with legacy sports, the Court observed, would amount to treating unequals as equals and could frustrate the objective of sports development .
The Court accepted the Union government's submission that the recognition of IPA was granted after a comparative assessment of both applicant bodies. It noted that IPA had affiliated units in 26 States and Union Territories, thereby meeting the requirement of representation in at least two-thirds of the country, whereas AIPA did not satisfy this threshold.
The Court also took note of the Ministry's assessment that IPA's constitution was broadly aligned with key governance provisions of the Sports Code, while AIPA's constitution lacked compliance with several mandatory requirements.
Additionally, in the absence of an International Olympic Committee-recognised global governing body for pickleball, the Ministry was justified in placing weight on IPA's affiliation with the Global Pickleball Federation, which was found to have a wider international footprint than the body affiliated with AIPA.
The High Court made it clear that it was not within the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution to sit in appeal over the comparative merits or demerits of rival sports bodies. It observed that such assessments fall squarely within the domain expertise of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.
The Court further underscored that recognition under the Sports Code is neither permanent nor unconditional. Annual renewal is an integral part of the regulatory framework, and the Ministry retains the power to review, suspend, or withdraw recognition if milestones are not met or if irregularities surface in the functioning of a federation.
Addressing objections raised by a third applicant questioning IPA's credentials and claims regarding national events, the Court declined to undertake a detailed fact-finding exercise. However, it clarified that such objections could be raised before the Ministry at the stage of annual renewal of IPA's recognition, and the same would have to be duly considered by the authorities.
In conclusion, the High Court held that the decision of the Ministry to recognise IPA as the NSF for pickleball did not suffer from arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness. Finding no legal infirmity in the grant of recognition or the limited relaxations extended, the Court dismissed the writ petition along with all pending applications.