Flexible Application of the Sports Code to Nascent Sports: Judicial Deference to MYAS Relaxation and NSF Recognition Decisions
1. Introduction
The Delhi High Court in ALL INDIA PICKLEBALL ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (02.02.2026) examined a challenge by the
All India Pickleball Association (AIPA) to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS) order dated 25.04.2025
recognising the Indian Pickleball Association (IPA) as the National Sports Federation (NSF) for Pickleball.
AIPA asserted long-standing existence (since 2008), international affiliation claims, and extensive activity, and alleged that IPA (registered 11.11.2024)
was non-compliant with the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (“Sports Code”) and had been favoured through
unjustified relaxations. MYAS defended the recognition as a comparative, policy-laden assessment in a fragmented international governance landscape for Pickleball,
relying on the Relaxation Clause inserted into the Sports Code by notification dated 01.02.2021.
A further complication arose through CM APPL. 31973/2025 by an entity styled “New Indian Pickleball Association”, disputing IPA’s claimed
tournament credentials and urging that recognition caused civil consequences without hearing. The Court ultimately treated such factual disputes as unsuitable
for detailed adjudication in writ proceedings and channelled them to MYAS for consideration during annual renewal.
2. Summary of the Judgment
- The writ petition challenging MYAS’s recognition of IPA as NSF was dismissed.
- The Court held that the Relaxation Clause (notification dated 01.02.2021; Clause 16) is a valid policy mechanism and that reliance on it was not barred by earlier Delhi High Court directions emphasising strict Sports Code compliance.
- The Court accepted that Pickleball is a nascent/emerging sport and that a mechanical “one size fits all” application of Sports Code requirements—especially district-level penetration and prior-existence thresholds—may be inappropriate.
- Judicial review under Article 226 would not be used to sit in appeal over MYAS’s comparative assessment unless the decision was ex facie arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.
- Disputes raised in CM APPL. 31973/2025 were left open to be raised before MYAS at the stage of annual renewal.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
This decision was pivotal because it directly upheld the validity of the Sports Code’s Relaxation Clause. The Court in the present case relied on
Rajasthan Equestrian to conclude that the executive can introduce a relaxation mechanism to address practical implementation difficulties, provided safeguards exist:
(i) relaxations must be consistent with good governance principles; and (ii) reasons must be recorded in writing by the Minister-in-charge.
Importantly, the present judgment used Rajasthan Equestrian to answer the petitioner’s core legal objection: that exemptions/relaxations are impermissible or contrary
to earlier directions emphasising strict compliance. The Court treated Rajasthan Equestrian as the controlling authority on the Relaxation Clause’s validity and utility.
3.1.2 Rahul Mehra v. Union of India, [W.P.(C) 8691/2020] (orders dated 26.05.2022 and 09.09.2022) and Rahul Mehra v. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC Online Del 2438
The petitioner relied heavily on Rahul Mehra to argue that compliance with the Sports Code is the “sine qua non” for NSF recognition and that “no further exemptions”
should be granted to non-compliant bodies. The Court distinguished this line of authority by holding that:
- The orders in W.P.(C) 8691/2020 emphasised strict compliance in their factual setting, but did not pronounce upon the validity or operation of the Relaxation Clause inserted on 01.02.2021.
- Those directions could not be read as an absolute prohibition on any relaxation—especially when a later coordinate bench in Rajasthan Equestrian specifically upheld the Relaxation Clause.
Thus, Rahul Mehra remained relevant for the proposition that core governance compliance is critical, but it did not, in this Court’s view, foreclose measured relaxations
for emerging sports within a structured and reviewable framework.
3.1.3 Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 444
This Supreme Court authority was used (via Rajasthan Equestrian and then reiterated here) to frame the doctrinal limit on administrative discretion:
even where discretion is vested in a Minister, it is not unfettered and must be exercised to advance the purpose of the power, with accountability and reasoned decision-making.
The present judgment invoked it to legitimise relaxations as a governance tool while insisting they remain bounded by transparency and objectives of the Sports Code.
3.1.4 K. P. Rao v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 779
The petitioner cited this decision (along with Rahul Mehra orders) to contend that strict Sports Code compliance governs recognition decisions. The present judgment,
however, did not treat K. P. Rao as displacing the relaxation framework upheld in Rajasthan Equestrian or as requiring the Court to re-weigh comparative merits under Article 226.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
(a) Nature of the Sports Code: executive, policy-driven, and adaptable
A central plank of the reasoning is the Court’s characterisation of the Sports Code as a non-statutory compendium of executive instructions
issued under Article 73 of the Constitution of India. From this, the Court draws two implications:
- The Code cannot be treated as “immutable or rigid”; it can incorporate structured mechanisms like relaxations.
- The Code must be applied in a manner consistent with reasonableness and proportionality, and not mechanically.
(b) “Nascent sports” as a category requiring contextual application
The Court makes an explicit equality-based argument: applying the most demanding Sports Code requirements—designed with legacy sports in mind—to an emerging sport
like Pickleball may amount to treating un-equals as equals. It highlights that:
- Nascent sports typically have limited geographic spread and evolving organisational structures.
- District-level penetration, state-to-district affiliation thresholds, and long prior existence may be difficult to satisfy immediately.
- Over-rigidity risks discouraging volunteers/pioneers and incentivising “paper compliance” rather than substantive governance.
The judgment, however, draws an important internal distinction within the Sports Code:
core governance norms (elections, transparency of accounts, age/tenure limits) are “necessarily mandatory and uniformly binding,”
whereas several structural/quantitative norms require sensitivity to the sport’s developmental stage.
(c) Validity and role of the Relaxation Clause
The Court endorses the Relaxation Clause (01.02.2021) as serving a “salutary purpose” by enabling MYAS to address operational difficulties and avoid counter-productive outcomes,
while remaining constrained by recorded reasons, overarching good governance, and the possibility of later review.
In this case, relaxations were granted to IPA for:
- Three-year existence requirement (para 3.3 of Annexure-II); and
- 50% district-level association affiliation condition (paras 3.10 and 3.19 of Annexure-II).
The Court treated these as within policy discretion, especially given the sport’s nascent status and MYAS’s asserted assessment of broader compliance and national reach.
(d) Scope of judicial review under Article 226: deference to policy and domain expertise
The Court reiterates that it will not function as an appellate forum to re-evaluate “comparative merits/demerits” between AIPA and IPA. It confines interference to cases of
ex facie arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness, and accepts MYAS’s comparative reasons (state/UT coverage, constitution alignment,
international footprint via GPF affiliation, and compliance parameters).
(e) Annual renewal architecture as an accountability mechanism
A notable part of the reasoning is institutional: even if relaxation is granted now, recognition is not permanent. The Sports Code’s framework of
annual recognition/renewal, and MYAS’s powers to suspend/withdraw, means exemptions and performance claims can be revisited.
This becomes the Court’s answer to objections (including those in CM APPL. 31973/2025): contestable facts and credentials can be pressed before MYAS at renewal.
3.3 Impact
-
Emerging-sports governance: The judgment strengthens the proposition that Sports Code compliance must be understood contextually for nascent sports,
allowing calibrated relaxations without dismantling good governance.
-
Institutional discretion with guardrails: By reaffirming Rajasthan Equestrian and invoking Shiv Sagar Tiwari, the decision legitimises MYAS discretion
while simultaneously emphasising the need for recorded reasons and alignment with ethical governance.
-
Reduced writ-court substitution: Applicants challenging recognition decisions may find it harder to secure relief unless they demonstrate
clear arbitrariness/manifest unreasonableness, rather than merely better credentials.
-
Renewal-stage litigation strategy: The Court’s emphasis on annual renewal signals that fact-heavy disputes (tournament credentials, affiliation controversies)
may be redirected to MYAS, with judicial intervention more likely after administrative reconsideration (or if MYAS ignores material representations).
-
International affiliation in fragmented regimes: Where no IOC-recognised international federation exists, the judgment implicitly approves MYAS considering
comparative “international footprint” among competing global bodies as a relevant factor for NSF recognition.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
- National Sports Federation (NSF)
- The single government-recognised national body for a sport, eligible for associated privileges and responsibilities under the Sports Code.
- Sports Code (National Sports Development Code of India, 2011)
- A consolidated set of executive guidelines (not a statute) governing recognition, governance standards, and oversight of sports bodies.
- Relaxation Clause (Clause 16; notification dated 01.02.2021)
- A provision empowering MYAS to relax Sports Code requirements as a special exemption when necessary/expedient for promoting sports, with written reasons and consistency with good governance.
- Article 73 (executive power of the Union)
- The constitutional source under which the Union issues executive instructions/policies (such as the Sports Code) in areas of Union competence.
- Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)
- The High Court’s power to review administrative action; typically focused on legality, fairness, and arbitrariness—not re-doing technical/policy choices as an appellate authority.
- “Manifest unreasonableness” / “arbitrariness”
- A high threshold for judicial interference: the decision must be clearly irrational or unfair on its face, not merely debatable.
- Annual renewal of recognition
- A built-in review mechanism under the Sports Code: recognition can be revisited each year, and may be suspended/withdrawn for serious irregularities or non-compliance.
5. Conclusion
The judgment’s key doctrinal contribution is its clear articulation that the Sports Code, as a policy instrument, must be applied with
contextual flexibility for nascent sports, supported by the validity and utility of the Relaxation Clause.
While insisting that core governance norms remain mandatory, the Court rejects a rigid approach that would impede the institutional development of emerging sports.
Equally significant is the Court’s institutional stance on judicial review: NSF recognition is treated as a specialised policy decision primarily for MYAS,
with the writ court intervening only for clear arbitrariness. By emphasising annual renewal and the possibility of reconsideration on representations,
the Court channels ongoing disputes (including contested credentials) into the Sports Code’s own oversight architecture rather than converting writ proceedings into fact trials.