New Delhi

The Delhi High Court has refused to alter the roadmap for the All India Tennis Association (AITA) elections, allowing all affiliated state bodies to vote in the federation's elections even if they are yet to comply with the National Sports Governance Act and the amended AITA Constitution, while dismissing a review petition filed by former Davis Cupper Somdev Devvarman and ex-India doubles player Purav Raja.

A division bench of Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain rejected the review petition, holding that the appellants were seeking to "re-agitate issues" settled through a consent order and that no error apparent on the face of the record had been made out to warrant a review.

The review petition stemmed from the court's June 18 interim order in appeals filed by both Devvarman and Raja as well as the AITA against an April 27, 2024 judgment of a single judge.

Considering the timelines prescribed under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 and the National Sports Governance Rules, 2026, both sides had agreed to an interim mechanism under which the AITA would first amend its Constitution and bye-laws to bring them in line with the new sports law before holding elections of its Executive Committee by September 30, 2026.

The June 18 order also directed that an Extraordinary General Meeting be held to consider the amendments clause by clause and specifically clarified that all affiliated state associations would be permitted to vote in the EGM and the AITA elections irrespective of whether they had complied with the Sports Act and the Sports Governance Rules at the time of voting.

The newly elected Executive Committee was then tasked with ensuring compliance by all affiliated state associations by December 31, 2026.

The states have already participated in the EGM where AITA aligned its constitution as per the NSG Act 2025.

In the review petition, Devvarman and Raja sought a limited modification to this sequence. They urged the court to direct affiliated state associations to first amend their constitutions, comply with the Sports Act, the Sports Governance Rules and applicable international charters, and conduct their own elections before the AITA elections were held.

Appearing for the appellants, senior advocate Rahul Mehra argued that since the AITA's General Body and electoral college are constituted by representatives of affiliated state associations, elections to the national federation should take place only after those associations become compliant with the amended AITA Constitution and the new legal framework.

He contended that conducting AITA elections beforehand could result in non-compliant representatives participating in the electoral process, including those lacking mandatory representation of Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit and athlete commission members, thereby defeating the objective of the reforms envisaged under the Sports Act.

Opposing the plea, AITA, represented by senior advocate Avi Singh, argued that the June 18 order was a consent order and could not be reopened through a review petition.

The federation also submitted that Rule 18 of the Sports Governance Rules casts the obligation to amend bye-laws within the prescribed timeline only on National Sports Bodies and not on state associations, and that postponing AITA elections until all affiliated units became compliant could indefinitely delay the electoral process.

Rejecting the plea, the High Court, on July 17, held that Rule 18 expressly mandates only National Sports Bodies to comply with the Sports Act within the stipulated period and does not require state associations to become compliant before elections to the national federation.

The bench also observed that while Section 15 of the Sports Act obliges National Sports Federations to ensure compliance by their voting members and affiliate units, it does not prescribe that such compliance must precede elections to the parent body.

It said the legislative framework envisages NSFs first implementing statutory reforms themselves before ensuring compliance by their affiliated units.

The court further noted that the June 18 directions were issued as an interim arrangement based on the consent of the parties without examining the merits of the appeals, and such consent could not subsequently be varied through a review petition.

The dispute traces back to the challenges of the AITA's 2024 elections.

READ MORE: Shabana Dagar safeguards 500-year musical legacy

In April 2024, a single judge of the Delhi High Court declared the September 2024 elections invalid and appointed former Chief Justice Gita Mittal as administrator to oversee the federation's affairs, prompting separate appeals by the AITA and Devvarman-Raja before the division bench. Those appeals remain pending.