Case: MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION Vs. RAHUL MEHRA

Smt. Damyanti Naranga Vs. The Union of India and Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 678 , which had approved the exposition in G.K. Ghose and Anr. Vs. E.X. Joseph.(1963) Supp. 3 SCR 789 In that case, this Court had held that the right to form an Association was conditioned by the existence of the recognition of the said Association by the Government. In that case the Court had held: It is not disputed that the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 19 can be claimed by Government servants. Article 33 which confers power on the Parliament to modify the rights in their application, to the Armed Forces, clearly brings out the fact that all citizens, including Government servants, are entitled to claim the rights guaranteed by Article 19. Thus, the validity of the impugned rule has to be judged on the basis that the respondent and his co¬ employees are entitled to form Associations or Unions. It is clear that Rule 4-B imposes a restriction on this right. It virtually compels a Government servant to withdraw his membership of the Service Association of Government servants as soon as recognition accorded to the said Association is withdraw or if, after the Association is formed, no recognition is accorded to it within six months. In other words, the right to form an Association is conditioned by the existence of the recognition of the said Association by the Government. If the Association obtains the recognition and continues to enjoy it, Government servants can become members of the said Association; if the Association does not secure recognition from the Government or recognition granted to it is withdrawn, Government servants must cease to be the members of the said Association. That is the plain effect of the impugned rule. 17. This dictum was quoted with approval by the Constitution Bench to conclude that the right to form an Association included the right to its continuance and any law altering the composition of the Association compulsorily will be a breach of the right to form the Association. Thus understood, the steps taken by the Administrator beyond the scope of the authority bestowed upon him in terms of the order of this Court dated 4 th December, 2017, cannot be validated by the Court but must be treated as non est in law. It would have been a different matter if the Administrator had presented the additional amendments before this Court and invited this Court to approve the same after hearing the concerned parties. 18. Be that as it may, the question as to whether the amendments incorporated by the Administrator are justified and proper or, so to speak, essential as per the exposition of this Court in Board of Control for Cricket Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 535 , need not detain us. For, the further amendments to the Constitution could be effected only in the manner provided by the Constitution of the AAI including in terms of the order dated 4 th December, 2017. It is thus not necessary for us to examine as to whether, in fact, there is any deviation or not from the dispensation predicated in the National Sports Code, as contended by the respondents and the counsel appearing for the Administrator. 19. For the time being, without any hesitation, we are of the considered opinion that all steps taken by the Administrator, including the elections conducted by him on the basis of the Constitution (as amended by him), will have to be treated as null and void and non est in law. The parties will have to be relegated to the position as on 4 th December, 2017, consequent to incorporation of the four amendments approved in terms of the same order. After carrying out those four amendments in the Constitution, the election will have to be conducted to constitute the new body, which would then take steps to introduce further amendments to the Constitution, if so required, to bring it in line with the National Sports Code, after giving an opportunity to all concerned. Only after the amendments are accepted and approved, fresh elections be conducted for constituting a new body in conformity with such duly amended Constitution. 20. In reference to certain apprehensions expressed by the respondents due to reactions of the World Archery body, we must observe that the controversy cannot be adjudicated on the basis of perception of the World Archery body. Similarly, we do not wish to expand the scope of the present proceedings as the main writ petition is still pending before the High Court of Delhi, where all issues can be deliberated and answered appropriately. While doing so, the High Court, no doubt, would be guided by the exposition in Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 226 ( para 1) , K. Murugan Vs. Fencing Association of India, Jabalpur and Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 412 ( para 12) , and Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors, (2015) 3 SCC 251 ( para 100¬103) on which reliance has been placed by the counsel representing the newly elected body of AAI and the respondents, for issuing appropriate directions in a public interest litigation. In other words, the High Court will examine all aspects of the matter on their own merits in accordance with law. 21. We make it clear that the High Court may also consider the stand taken by the appellant(s) and Union of India that the decision of this Court in Board of Control for Cricket (supra) (2016) 8 SCC 535 will be of no avail to the present case, because the National Sports Code takes within its fold fifty¬two disciplines of sports and Cricket is not one of the scheduled sports. In other words, the dispensation to be followed must be in conformity with the National Sports Code in so far as AAI is concerned. We keep this issue open to be considered at the appropriate stage.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]The background in which the said order came to be passed after hearing the parties, leaves no manner of doubt that it had modified the impugned order of the High Court dated 10 th August, 2017. Further, the contentious issues regarding the proposed amendment in the Constitution stood answered to that extent. In that, this Court passed a peremptory order not only for approving the proposed amendments, as noted in the order dated 4 th December, 2017, but also directed the Administrator to conduct elections in consonance thereto within a period of four weeks, after incorporating the amendments within one week from the date of the order. That was the limited mandate given to the Administrator. Indeed, this Court had given liberty to the Administrator to seek clarification or directions if and when necessary. That liberty, however, by no stretch of imagination could be mistaken as authorising the Administrator to carry out amendments in the Constitution beyond the four amendments referred to in the order dated 4 th December, 2017, much less to do so unilaterally without any prior notice to all the stakeholders and due deliberations with them as mandated by the Constitution of the AAI. In any case, any further amendments to the Constitution could be incorporated only after taking prior permission of this Court which was still in seisen of the matter. The Administrator was also ill¬advised not to seek extension of time for completion of election process, which was to be completed not later than five weeks from 4 th December, 201713. The stand taken by the Administrator is that the order dated 4 th December, 2017 gave him liberty to ensure that the Constitution of the Association is strictly in accordance with the Sports Code and only thereafter to proceed with the election. Indeed, liberty was given to the Administrator in the last paragraph of the order dated 4 th December, 2017. However, the order if read as a whole and keeping in mind the spirit of the order, it had directed the Administrator to ensure timely completion of election within five weeks from the date of the order on the basis of four amendments approved by the Court, which were required to be incorporated by the Administrator within one week from the date of the order. No more and no less. For any other doubt or deviation, the Administrator was obliged to seek clarification and appropriate directions from this Court, before the expiry of the timeline given in the order dated 4 th December, 2017. The Administrator, however, merely filed a compliance report on 24 th September, 2018, in the Registry of this Court without attempting even once to invite the attention of this Court thereto. The Administrator has also filed a further report in terms of the order dated 28 th March, 2019. On perusal of the said reports, we may hasten to accept the plea that the steps taken by the Administrator were under a mistaken beliefthat he had the authority to proceed in the manner that he did and including to amend the Constitution beyond the four amendments referred to in the order dated 4 th December, 2017. It is not a case of defiance or disobedience of the Courts order as such15. We are in agreement with the stand taken by the appellant(s) that the Administrator could have taken only such steps as were permitted by this Court vide order dated 4 th December, 2017, in their letter and spirit. Indisputably, the additional amendments incorporated by the Administrator have resulted in denial of right to represent in and contest elections of the AAI for the existing members. Notably, even the direction given by the High Court whilst appointing the Administrator vide the impugned judgment, in no way gave authority to the Administrator to amend the Constitution, but was limited to conduct elections on the basis of the Constitution as it stood then. As ordered by the High Court, it was for the newly elected body to take steps in the right earnest to amend the Constitution to bring it in line with the National Sports Code on specified matters and then to conduct fresh elections on the basis of such amended Constitution. In other words, the Constitution could be amended only in accordance with law, which means by the elected body after interacting with all the stakeholders and members. The Administrator had no power to amend the Constitution, much less unilaterally, except for the four amendments approved by this Court, for which no further formality was required to be undertaken. The Administrator was obliged to conduct elections on the basis of such amended Constitution in terms of the order of this Court dated 4 th December, 2017. No more and no less17. This dictum was quoted with approval by the Constitution Bench to conclude that the right to form an Association included the right to its continuance and any law altering the composition of the Association compulsorily will be a breach of the right to form the Association. Thus understood, the steps taken by the Administrator beyond the scope of the authority bestowed upon him in terms of the order of this Court dated 4 th December, 2017, cannot be validated by the Court but must be treated as non est in law. It would have been a different matter if the Administrator had presented the additional amendments before this Court and invited this Court to approve the same after hearing the concerned parties18. Be that as it may, the question as to whether the amendments incorporated by the Administrator are justified and proper or, so to speak, essential as per the exposition of this Court in Board of Control for Cricket Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 535  , need not detain us. For, the further amendments to the Constitution could be effected only in the manner provided by the Constitution of the AAI including in terms of the order dated 4 th December, 2017. It is thus not necessary for us to examine as to whether, in fact, there is any deviation or not from the dispensation predicated in the National Sports Code, as contended by the respondents and the counsel appearing for the Administrator19. For the time being, without any hesitation, we are of the considered opinion that all steps taken by the Administrator, including the elections conducted by him on the basis of the Constitution (as amended by him), will have to be treated as null and void and non est in law. The parties will have to berelegated to the position as on 4 th December, 2017, consequent to incorporation of the four amendments approved in terms of the same order. After carrying out those four amendments in the Constitution, the election will have to be conducted to constitute the new body, which would then take steps to introduce further amendments to the Constitution, if so required, to bring it in line with the National Sports Code, after giving an opportunity to all concerned. Only after the amendments are accepted and approved, fresh elections be conducted for constituting a new body in conformity with such duly amended Constitution20. In reference to certain apprehensions expressed by the respondents due to reactions of the World Archery body, we must observe that the controversy cannot be adjudicated on the basis of perception of the World Archery body. Similarly, we do not wish to expand the scope of the present proceedings as the main writ petition is still pending before the High Court of Delhi, where all issues can be deliberated and answered appropriately. While doing so, the High Court, no doubt, would be guided by the exposition in Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 226 (  para 1) , K. Murugan Vs. Fencing Association of India, Jabalpur and Ors.(1991) 2 SCC 412 (  para 12) , and Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors, (2015) 3 SCC 251 (  para 100¬103) on which reliance has been placed by the counsel representing the newly elected body of AAI and the respondents, for issuing appropriate directions in a public interest litigation. In other words, the High Court will examine all aspects of the matter on their own merits in accordance with law21. We make it clear that the High Court may also consider the stand taken by the appellant(s) and Union of India that the decision of this Court in Board of Control for Cricket (supra) (2016) 8 SCC 535 will be of no avail to the present case, because the National Sports Code takes within its fold fifty¬two disciplines of sports and Cricket is not one of the scheduled sports. In other words, the dispensation to be followed must be in conformity with the National Sports Code in so far as AAI isconcerned. We keep this issue open to be considered at the appropriate stage.