Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The Petitioners argue that the Sports Code of 2011 and the letter of 01-05-2010 are illegal and without authority of law, to the extent that they impose cap on tenure of various office bearers of the IOA and the NSFs. It is submitted that these bodies are registered under provisions of the Act which nowhere speaks about cap on the tenure or on the number of re-elections of the office bearers. The guidelines issued by the Government to this effect are illegal as they are trying to override an Act passed by the Parliament. It is submitted that these restrictions violate Article 19 (1) (c) as well as Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because there are many NGOs which receive Government aid and grants but have no such caps on their tenures or re- elections. It is urged that infliction of such terms is utterly unreasonable. In any event, being non-statutory and mere guidelines, they cannot abridge or affect fundamental rights. The revised 2001 guidelines, sought to be imposed through the impugned letter and the National Sports Code, so far it mandates a cap on tenure to the extent of two terms, and also mandates a time limit for such tenure and similar restrictions, imposing a ban on individuals holding office in more than one association or sports body, robs these federations and independent societies of their right to exercise free choice. When none of the members of these societies voiced any objection to the existing rules in that regard, the UOI cannot, in the guise of W.P.(C)2310/2012 Page 11 recognizing these bodies for the purpose of grants, impose something that is neither a compulsion by law, nor mandated by individual constitutions.

W.P.(C)2310/2012 Page 32 Does the National sports code fall within Entry 33 (List II) or any entry in the Union List

40. The respondents‟ claim is, and indeed, a first impression may be that the content and import of the National Sports Code falls within, at least in part, Entry 13 of List I of the VII Schedule, which reads: "Participation in international conferences, associations and other bodies and implementation of decisions made thereat." Such a reading, however, would be erroneous and twist the core of Entry 13. This entry allows the Central Government to manage the foreign affairs of the country, and to that end, participate in international conferences, discussions at international associations and other bodies. The reason for the inclusion of Entry 13 was to ensure that in the international sphere the Central Government would not have its hands tied behind its back in terms of its negotiating ability, if the content of the discussion at the international forum relates to subject matter found in List II. The focus, therefore, is on vesting power in the Central Government to represent a unitary view of the sovereign Indian state at international fora, rather than to provide a power to regulate private conduct at an international level (i.e. in private conferences, associations and other bodies). The fact that Entry 13 is focused on sovereign (i.e. state) conduct abroad, rather than the relations of non-state actors internationally, is evident not only from the entries surrounding Entry 13, i.e. foreign affairs (Entry

Thus, in relation to such parts of the Code, and such parts alone, it is clear that the Central Government is competent to act in its execute power under Entry 10, List I.

47. The next claim - this one by the petitioners - is that the National Sports Code falls within Entry 33, List II (which includes sports), and is thus exclusively within the domain of the State executive. The question that concerns the Court is whether the National Sports Code pertains to sport in the sense contemplated by Entry 33. Clearly, regulation of sports does come within the state list. However, it would be more accurate to W.P.(C)2310/2012 Page 40 note that states have exclusive competence over sports within their territory, i.e. in the state/province, any regulation of sport is to be conducted by the state and not the centre. The question before the Court today, however, is different, i.e. who regulates sporting activity between states (nationally) and as regards the Indian Union internationally. Or more accurately put, though in principle the same question, the question is who regulates the private bodies that regulate such activities.

54. It is also noteworthy that the Seventh Schedule does not confer the power to legislate, but only demarcates the legislative field between the Centre and the States (see, Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 166,), limiting the power to legislate based on a restrictive reading of entries clearly runs counter to the plenary power to legislate, and act. As neither Entry 13, List I, nor Entry 33 List II, cover the field within which the National Sports Code operates, the plenary W.P.(C)2310/2012 Page 47 power to legislate under Article 248, under the residuary field of Entry 97, covers the National Sports Code in this case.