It is unsporting and not sporting at all to not comply with the rules.
In early June 2022, the Delhi High Court moved to sever public funding from India's national sports federations that had spent years ignoring a governance code requiring meaningful athlete representation in their own administration. The ruling, born from a petition filed in 2020, reflects a deeper tension in institutional sport: that the people who play the game are too often excluded from the rooms where its future is decided. By directing funds away from non-compliant bodies and toward athletes directly, the court drew a line between patronage and accountability — and made clear that the two can no longer coexist.
- Despite receiving over ₹1,238 crore in public funds between 2009 and 2020 under explicit conditions, more than two dozen national sports federations had failed to meet the basic requirement that athletes hold 25% of governing seats with voting rights.
- The government's own accounting of compliance was contested — officials claimed 15 federations were fully compliant, while petitioner Rahul Mehra submitted evidence suggesting at least 24 were in violation, with some, like the Wrestling Federation of India, lacking even a constitution.
- The court responded by halting all central grants to non-compliant federations immediately, refusing to allow administrative dysfunction to continue drawing on public money without consequence.
- To protect athletes from being collateral damage in a governance failure they did not cause, the bench ordered financial support to be routed directly through the Sports Authority of India, bypassing the federations entirely.
- With a next hearing set for July 20 and the government's promise of full compliance by end of June on the record, the court issued a pointed warning: more suspensions were coming, and the era of optional compliance was over.
On a Friday in early June, the Delhi High Court issued an order that had been a long time coming: national sports federations out of step with India's 2014 sports code would receive no more government funding. The case had begun in 2020, when senior advocate Rahul Mehra petitioned the court with a pointed question — why were sports bodies still ignoring a judgment that had the force of law?
The National Sports Development Code, built from government directives stretching back to 1975, required that at least 25 percent of a federation's governing members be prominent athletes with genuine voting rights. The principle was straightforward: those who understand sport should have a hand in running it. Most federations had not bothered to comply.
When the bench of justices Nazmi Waziri and Vikas Mahajan examined the situation, the picture was muddled. The government reported 15 fully compliant federations, six with exemptions, and three under court-appointed administrators — but also acknowledged that 22 more needed fixes ranging from minor to sweeping. Mehra disputed even this, presenting his own count of at least 24 violations. The Wrestling Federation of India, he noted, did not even have a constitution.
The court's remedy was direct: cut off the grants. But the bench was careful to distinguish between federations that had failed and the athletes who depended on them. It ordered the government to channel financial support to sportspersons directly through the Sports Authority of India, ensuring that administrative failure would not become an athlete's burden.
The judges did not mince words. Athlete representation in governance, they wrote, was the whole spirit of the regime — and without it, the regime meant nothing. They warned of suspension for non-compliant bodies and told the government's joint secretary plainly: "There are more red cards coming up." With the government promising full compliance by end of June, the court scheduled a follow-up for July 20 and made its expectations unmistakable.
On a Friday in early June, the Delhi High Court took a step that had been building for years: it told the Indian government to stop sending money to national sports federations that were not following the rules. The order was simple in its force. No more grants. No more patronage. Not until the federations complied with a code that had been declared the law of the land back in 2014.
The case had started in 2020, when senior advocate Rahul Mehra filed a petition asking a basic question: why were sports bodies ignoring a court judgment? The National Sports Development Code of India, assembled from government orders stretching back to 1975, laid out how these federations should operate. One requirement stood out: at least 25 percent of a federation's governing members had to be prominent athletes, and they had to have voting rights. It was a simple safeguard, meant to keep sports administration in the hands of people who actually understood sport. Most federations were not doing it.
When the bench of justices Nazmi Waziri and Vikas Mahajan heard the case, the picture that emerged was messy. The government's own joint secretary from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports reported that 15 federations were fully compliant with the code. Six had been granted exemptions. Three were under court-appointed administrator committees. But then the numbers got worse: five federations needed minor fixes, and 17 needed major overhauls. Mehra, though, disputed even these figures. He submitted his own compilation showing that at least 24 federations were violating the code. He pointed to the Wrestling Federation of India as an example—it did not even have a constitution. "There are many others who, similarly, do not qualify for grant of benefits or sustenance for their recognition," he told the court.
The government had disbursed nearly 1,238 crore rupees to these federations between 2009 and 2020, Mehra noted, on the explicit understanding that they would follow the code. That money had come with conditions. The federations had accepted those conditions. They had simply not met them.
The court's response was to cut off the money. "It is, therefore, prudent that no more monies or assistance be extended to any of the NSFs, at least till the next date, unless they comply with the code," the order read. But the bench also understood that athletes could not be punished for administrative failures. So it directed the government to provide financial support directly to sportspersons through the Sports Authority of India, bypassing the non-compliant federations entirely. The court also told the government to put non-compliant federations on immediate notice of suspension.
The judges were blunt about why this mattered. "The whole spirit behind the regime is largely defeated, if this essential element of sports administration is not followed," they wrote, referring to the requirement that athletes sit on governing boards. The court reminded the federations of the code's provisions for withdrawal or suspension of recognition. And in a line that carried both warning and frustration, the bench told the joint secretary: "Let them not say that our players are going to suffer. It is unsporting and not sporting at all to not comply with the rules. There are more red cards coming up."
The government had promised that all federations would be compliant by the end of June. The court set the next hearing for July 20 and asked the joint secretary to return with a status report. The message was clear: compliance was no longer optional, and the court was prepared to enforce it.
Citas Notables
The whole spirit behind the regime is largely defeated, if this essential element of sports administration is not followed.— Delhi High Court bench
There are many others who, similarly, do not qualify for grant of benefits or sustenance for their recognition.— Senior advocate Rahul Mehra, on non-compliant federations
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did it take eight years—from 2014 to 2022—for the court to actually stop the money?
Because compliance is not automatic. The 2014 judgment declared the code the law of the land, but no one was checking whether federations actually followed it. The government kept disbursing funds. The federations kept ignoring the rules. It took Mehra's petition in 2020 to force the issue back into court.
The court says 15 federations are compliant, but Mehra says 24 are violating the code. That's a huge gap. How does that happen?
Different counting methods, probably. The government may have been lenient in what it calls "compliance." Mehra was looking at actual violations—missing constitutions, no athlete representation, structural problems. The court noticed this gap too, which is why it said the picture was "unclear" and decided to halt all funding until things were sorted out.
But doesn't cutting off funds hurt the athletes?
That's exactly what the court anticipated. So it ordered the government to fund athletes directly through the Sports Authority of India instead. The federations lose the money, but the players still get support. It's a way to punish the organizations without punishing the sport.
What does "25 percent of members must be eminent sportspersons" actually mean in practice?
It means athletes get a seat at the table where decisions are made. They have voting rights. They can shape policy. Without that, you end up with administrators making rules about a sport they may not understand. The court saw this as fundamental to good governance.
The court said "there are more red cards coming up." What does that mean?
It means the court is signaling that if federations don't comply by July 20, suspensions will follow. This wasn't a gentle warning. It was a threat of enforcement. The court was tired of waiting.