Two factions, two affidavits; Srinivas’s suggestions big worry for IOA

Express News Service

CHENNAI: “The Indian Olympic Association should not cherry-pick between the National Sports Development Code of India (NSDCI) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Charter as per convenience,” says former sports secretary Injeti Srinivas under the observation column. He had prepared a detailed list of all the 13 objections raised by Rahul Mehra, a senior lawyer who specialises in sports against the IOA constitution.

Going by the suggestions of Srinivas, the IOA seems to be in trouble. He has extensively quoted from the IOC Charter and as one of the top ministry officials involved in remodelling the NSDCI, he cited provisions of the code from 1975 to 2010 and ’11. In the factual position column there is mention of earlier court orders and sports ministry affidavits too.

Two separate affidavits

The way the IOA tops officials act seems ridiculous. During the Annual General Meeting overseen by court-appointed retired judge Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and assisted by Srinivas, the IOA formed a six-member committee to align the constitution “in consonance with the National Sports Development Code of India 2011”.

The six members are IOA president Narinder Batra, secretary-general Rajeev Mehta, treasurer Anandeshwar Pandey, two senior vice-presidents Anil Khanna and RK Anand and Lalit Bhanot, the chairman of IOA preparations committee. The committee was supposed to give a presentation to Srinivas before bringing it back to the house for approval. However, as expected the two factions of the IOA submitted separate applications in the court. The observation terms Batra, Anand and Bhanot as Faction 1 while faction 2 includes Mehta, Khanna and Pandey. At times both agreed on certain points but also differed in a few. Batra’s affidavits were much more elaborate explaining various clauses and previous orders, while Mehta’s was more to the point.

Restrictive clause

Srinivas’ observations seem to be based on the Olympic Charter, NSDCI and law of the land as per court orders. The restrictive clause, one of the major contentious issues, would not be convenient for both parties. According to the IOA constitution, to contest for the post of president, secretary and treasurer, one has to be a member of the previous five executive council. Batra and Mehta have given different views on the application. Mehta wants the clause to be removed while Batra has maintained its necessity.

Srinivas, however, is quite clear. According to him as per the model election guidelines stipulated by the NSDCI, the nomination of a candidate for election shall be from the names included in the electoral college. There is no other qualification prescribed. Further, there are no such restrictions in Olympic Charter as well.”

Manageable size of EC

Mehra had objected to the size of the IOA’s EC. Right now it has three office-bearers — one president, one secretary-general and a treasurer — two senior vice-presidents, nine VPs, six joint secretaries, 10 executive council members and one representative elected out of the athletes’ commission. Even though NSDCI permits 12 members in EC, both factions agree that given the size of the country, there is nothing wrong with the current numbers. However, one point that the Mehta faction application mentions is interesting. It says, “…the president of IOA cannot be permitted to invite persons, many of whom are not even IOA members, to attend as special invitees…” Srinivas has an interesting observation: “The EC should be of a reasonable size. IOA should benchmark with best-performing countries in Olympics such as USA, UK, etc which have high standards of sports governance.” Under the factual column, the document states NSDCI recommends seven office-bearers and five EC members as manageable, a note says that “the above number may be changed according to the constitution of the federation concerned”.

Another crucial point raised by Mehra was that the Sports Code should be followed by every constituent of IOA/NSFs i.e. every state and district level across the country. IOA felt that making it binding on state units depends on state governments as sports is a state subject. However, Srinivas observes that “Nothing stops IOA/NSFs to make it mandatory upon their affiliates to align their constitution with that of their own. Unless that is done the foundation of good governance would be missing…”

Other two comments

The cooling-off period for secretary and treasurer too was defined. According to the comment, the cooling-off period “…applies only when he/she contest to the posts of secretary-general/treasurer. This is line with IOC Charter where the two years cooling-off period after completion of two successive terms of office doesn’t apply to the election of office of President. In other words, there is no cooling-off or waiting period to contest for the post of president.”

The re-election majority suggestion too will not go down well with the IOA. Mehra had said that a member seeking re-election must win by 2/3 majority. Srinivas says, “As per NSDCI, in the event of re-election, it is mandatory for a candidate to get 2/3 majority for the subsequent term of office.”

The court had a hearing on Thursday. Mehra has objected to most of the points in both the applications. The next hearing is on February 4.