Introduction:
The Delhi High Court has recently intervened in the affairs of the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI), a body entrusted with the governance and development of equestrian sports in the country. The matter came up in a writ petition filed by the Rajasthan Equestrian Association, which sought to challenge the validity of a notice dated August 02, 2025, issued by EFI’s Secretary General, Col. Jaiveer Singh, for convening an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (EOGM) scheduled for August 17, 2025. The petition was heard by Justice Sachin Datta, who on August 13, 2025, passed an interim order staying the impugned notice and restraining the Federation from holding the proposed EOGM. The case has exposed the ongoing factionalism, procedural irregularities, and alleged misuse of authority within the Federation, leading the Court to observe that there exist “serious disputes about virtually every facet of the functioning and current state of affairs of the EFI.” Representing the petitioner Rajasthan Equestrian Association was Senior Advocate Rajeev Dutta, assisted by Advocates Ashish Kothari, Balasubramanian Ramesh, Pratha Pant, and Pratyush Singh from Kochhar & Co., while EFI was represented by Senior Advocate Pragyan Pradip Sharma, assisted by Advocates Vinajay Bhandari, Hardik Jain, and Ishaan Phukan. The judgment, though interim, has critical implications not only for the administration of the EFI but also for the larger question of transparency and accountability in sports governance in India.
Arguments:
The petitioner, Rajasthan Equestrian Association, argued that the notice convening the EOGM was tainted with mala fides and issued with an ulterior motive to disrupt the functioning of the EFI. It was submitted that as per the EFI’s statutes, any decision to convene an EOGM must first be placed before the Executive Committee (EC). However, in this case, the Secretary General unilaterally issued the notice without obtaining approval or consultation with the EC. This omission, the petitioner contended, was a violation of Article 012 of the EFI Statute. Furthermore, the petitioner drew attention to Article 011, which mandates a minimum notice period of 30 days for convening an EOGM. The impugned notice dated August 02 sought to convene the meeting on August 17, thus giving only 15 days’ notice, thereby violating the mandatory procedural requirement. The petitioner also highlighted the prevailing internal disputes in the EFI, including the fact that the elected President, Lt. Gen. Gopal R., had earlier expressed his inability to continue, following which the EC unanimously appointed Col. Jagat Singh as the Interim President. Moreover, the EC had also passed a resolution suspending Col. Jaiveer Singh himself from the office of Secretary General. Against this backdrop, the petitioner contended that the notice issued by a suspended official, bypassing the governing body’s approval, and without adherence to the statutes, was invalid and designed to aggravate existing tensions within the Federation.
On the other hand, the EFI, through its counsel, defended the issuance of the notice and argued that the Secretary General was well within his rights to convene the EOGM. Senior Advocate Pragyan Pradip Sharma submitted that the functioning of the Federation required urgent deliberations, and the convening of an EOGM was in furtherance of organizational interests. EFI’s counsel maintained that disputes raised by the Rajasthan Equestrian Association were reflective of factionalism within the Federation rather than genuine statutory violations. The EFI contended that any decision taken by the Secretary General in this regard should be seen as an administrative necessity and not as a breach of statutory obligations. The Federation sought to project that the petition was motivated by competing power struggles rather than legitimate legal grievances.
Judgement:
After carefully considering the submissions from both sides, Justice Sachin Datta delivered a detailed interim order. The Court referred to an earlier decision by a coordinate bench dated January 07, 2025, which had already observed “glaring discrepancies” in EFI’s membership structure, particularly regarding the representation of State associations vis-à-vis club associations. The coordinate bench had gone so far as to appoint a five-member Fact-Finding Committee to investigate the ground realities of equestrian sports in India, highlighting the already unsettled state of affairs in the Federation. Against this background, Justice Datta found no justification for introducing further instability by convening an EOGM. The Court categorically stated that while the fact-finding exercise was still underway, “there appears no rationale in seeking to further confound the uneasy state of affairs in EFI by convening an EOGM.”
The Court emphasized that prima facie, there was merit in the petitioner’s contention that the EOGM could not be convened without the matter first being placed before the Executive Committee, as mandated under Article 012. The Court also found substance in the allegation that the 30-day notice requirement under Article 011 had been breached. Justice Datta highlighted that compliance with such statutory procedures was not a mere formality but an essential safeguard to ensure fairness, transparency, and order in organizational governance. The Court took note of the suspension of Col. Jaiveer Singh by the Executive Committee, which further cast doubts on the validity of his unilateral decision to issue the impugned notice.
Accordingly, the High Court stayed the operation of the notice dated August 02, 2025, and restrained the EFI from holding the proposed EOGM on August 17, 2025. Justice Datta observed that the EFI was not only “faction-ridden” but also plagued by discrepancies regarding its membership. In view of these circumstances, the Court concluded that the convening of an EOGM at this juncture would serve no constructive purpose and would only deepen the internal conflict. Thus, the order served as a strong message that organizational disputes in sports bodies must be addressed through lawful, transparent, and democratic procedures, and not by unilateral actions of individuals claiming authority.
The significance of this case extends beyond the EFI and speaks to the governance challenges faced by many sports federations in India. The Court’s intervention underscores the importance of adherence to statutes and internal regulations, particularly in institutions responsible for managing sports and representing the country in international events. The judiciary has, in recent years, repeatedly stepped in to ensure that sports federations operate in a transparent and accountable manner, free from factionalism and misuse of authority. This case represents yet another instance where judicial oversight has been necessary to preserve the integrity of a sporting body.