Enforcing the Validity of the National Sports Code's Relaxation Clause with Strict Accountability: The New Judicial Mandate

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Rajasthan Equestrian Association v. Union of India & Ors., decided on January 07, 2025. The case is part of a larger series of litigations surrounding the governance, roles, and responsibilities of National Sports Federations (NSFs)—in this instance, the Equestrian Federation of India (“EFI”). The court was tasked with determining whether an amendment introducing a “Relaxation Clause” into the National Sports Development Code (2011) (“Sports Code”) was valid, and whether the government’s subsequent granting of exemptions to EFI violated the uniform and democratic principles enshrined in the Sports Code.

The petitioner, the Rajasthan Equestrian Association, objected to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports' (“MYAS”) significant exemptions granted to EFI, contending that they effectively undermined core provisions of the Sports Code, particularly those that ensure transparency, grassroots development, and democratic structures within a sport’s governance.

Ultimately, while the Court upheld the validity of the Relaxation Clause itself, it ruled that the exemptions granted to EFI under this clause had not been adequately justified. The Court established a Fact-Finding Committee to study the reality of the sport’s infrastructure and ensure that any future exemptions do not thwart the underlying principles of inclusivity, transparency, and accountability mandated by the Sports Code.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In its decision, the Delhi High Court made the following key points:

Relaxation Clause Validity: The Court found no illegality in empowering the Minister-in-Charge to grant exemptions under a “Relaxation Clause” in the Sports Code. However, this authority is not unfettered and must be used with transparency, consistency, and proper reasoning.
Scrutiny of EFI Exemptions: Although the Court recognized that Equestrian sports may have unique infrastructure requirements, it held that granting wide-ranging exemptions to the EFI—especially those that compromised participatory governance, transparency in elections, and state-level representation—was unjustified.
Need for Representation & Grassroots Development: The Court emphasized the indispensable principle that every NSF must have a proper state and district-level structure, thereby preventing concentration of power. Direct membership and voting rights for clubs, at the expense of recognized state associations, were particularly called into question.
Fact-Finding Committee: The Court established a five-member committee chaired by a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court, tasking it with verifying the real extent of Equestrian infrastructure and participation across India. Its report will help determine whether any continued or modified exemptions to EFI are warranted.
Interim Continuation of Exemptions: While the Court deemed the notifications granting exemptions to be arbitrary, it allowed them to operate on an interim basis until the Fact-Finding Committee concludes its inquiry. Thereafter, the MYAS must revisit its decision in possession of concrete evidence.

3. Analysis

a) Precedents Cited

The judgment references judicial dicta emphasizing the binding nature of the Sports Code on NSFs. Although the decision itself does not enumerate a long list of explicit prior authorities, it draws upon:

Rahul Mehra v. Union of India & Ors.: This significant case reiterated that all NSFs must adhere strictly to the Sports Code, endorsing the principle that government-funded or recognized sports bodies cannot circumvent set guidelines.
Aslam Sher Khan v. Union of India: Cited for the idea that non-compliance with the Sports Code undermines its rational purpose of strengthening sports governance in India.
Administrative Law Precedents: The Court also drew upon general administrative-law principles, explaining that policy decisions and any clauses granting discretionary powers—such as the Relaxation Clause—are subject to constitutional and legal limits, especially when good governance and transparency are at stake.

b) Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning unfolds methodically:

Policy Authority & Scope of Relaxation Clause: The government retains executive authority to devise policies, particularly in sports administration. A “Relaxation Clause,” if introduced through executive policy, will generally be upheld unless it patently contravenes constitutional or statutory restrictions. Still, the Court underscored that such delegated authority must incorporate mechanisms for transparency and reasoned decision-making.
Nexus Between Unique Sport Infrastructure and Governance: The Court acknowledged that Equestrian sports differ in degree (e.g., significant funding requirements, specialized training, horse care, and large grounds). However, these distinctive challenges do not obviate the Sports Code’s governance standards. The Court rejected the blanket assertion that unique infrastructure demands justified weakening representative structures.
Validity of Sports Code Parameters: The Sports Code enshrines fundamental democratic norms—transparency, accountability, inclusive governance, and uniform development—that each NSF is compelled to follow. This includes mandatory compliance with requirements such as having affiliated units in two-thirds of the states, confining voting rights to recognized state/union territory associations, and following model election guidelines.
Suspecting Arbitrary Exemptions: The Court scrutinized the absence of intensive fact-finding by the MYAS before granting EFI its exemptions. Unlike the Code’s intended effect of broad-based representation, the exemptions effectively enabled direct club and individual memberships (including certain Army units) to vote, leading to a top-down approach rather than a bottom-up, representative model.
Fact-Finding Committee: To rectify an otherwise inequitable status quo, the Court constituted a specialized committee to gather empirical data on Equestrian sports in India—particularly focusing on infrastructure availability, district involvement, and the potential involvement of clubs within a more integrated state and district-based system. The government must revisit these exemptions after this ground-level study.

c) Impact

The ruling is poised to have profound consequences for the governance of Equestrian sports and, potentially, other sports demanding unique infrastructure or resources.

Accountability and Transparency: NSFs can no longer rely on generic claims of “unique infrastructure” to avoid compliance with the Sports Code. Detailed, evidence-based justifications will be mandatory, thus heightening transparency in sports administration.
Strengthening Grassroots Development: By confirming that a top-down membership structure undermines equitable and widespread representation, the judgment pushes NSFs to promote state- and district-level presence, ensuring the next generation of athletes is not sidelined.
Guidance on Executive Discretion: For future legal controversies, the Court’s message is direct: the Relaxation Clause is valid, but it cannot be misused to legitimize contravention of the very principles of good governance that the Sports Code seeks to establish.
Precedent for Other NSFs: The ruling’s balanced approach—maintaining the Relaxation Clause’s validity while rejecting arbitrary exemptions—may guide other federations claiming unique challenges, clarifying that selective excuses will not automatically grant them relief from the Sports Code.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

National Sports Development Code (Sports Code): A set of government-issued guidelines to promote uniformity, transparency, and accountability among Indian sports federations. It demands democratic practices, due representation of states, fixed tenures for officials, and standardized election procedures for NSFs.
Relaxation Clause: A policy provision allowing the Minister-in-Charge of MYAS to exempt an NSF from certain requirements of the Sports Code—under specific, justifiable circumstances. It must be guided by the spirit of good sports governance and is subject to judicial review to prevent arbitrary use.
NSF (National Sports Federation): A recognized body entrusted by the government and relevant international federations to regulate and promote a given sport in India. NSFs typically receive government funding and must comply with the Sports Code.
Representative “Pyramid” Structure: Outlined in the Sports Code, this structure ensures that an NSF is built ground-up—from district to state to national levels—to include broad participation, making governance more democratic. NSF members ideally are state/union territory associations, which in turn have district-level units.
Fact-Finding Committee: A specially appointed body led by an experienced retired High Court Judge, charged with investigating factual situations (e.g., the actual reach and resources of a particular sport). Its findings help ensure that any policy exemptions or rulings are based on real data, not assumptions.

5. Conclusion

The Court’s decision carefully balances two crucial aspects: it upholds the legality of a Relaxation Clause that grants the government latitude in promoting nascent or resource-intensive sports yet emphasizes that this power cannot be used to whitewash departures from fundamental principles of good governance. Although Equestrian sports may require significant investments and specialized facilities, the Court clarified that these needs do not justify perpetuating top-heavy governance approaches or bypassing grassroots representation.

By constituting a Fact-Finding Committee, the Court ensures that future exemptions are rooted in accurate data and demonstrable necessity, rather than unverified statements. In the interim, the currently granted exemptions remain in place, but with a clear judicial warning that they are not conclusively endorsed. Should the Committee’s findings reveal workable methods to align Equestrian sports with the existing NSF model, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports will be bound to re-examine whether any exemptions are still required.

In essence, the ruling underscores the central mission of the Sports Code: public transparency, accountability, and genuine participation in sports administration. It reaffirms that all NSFs—regardless of uniqueness in funding, equipment, or club-based structures—must uphold these bedrock principles to foster equitable, broad-based sports development in India.