Himachal Pradesh HC Directs Boxing Federation Of India To Allow BJP MP Anurag Thakur To Participate In Its Upcoming Polls

It may be noted that on March 7, Thakur, who had been representing the Himachal Pradesh Boxing Association (HPBA), as well as Larry Kharpran of Meghalaya, Asish Kumar Saha of Tripura and Delhi state body's Rohit Jain and Neeraj Bhatt were found ineligible to be part of the electoral college.

The Federation's president, Ajay Singh (Respondent No. 2), issued the order in question and approved by the returning officer, Justice (Retd.) R.K. Gauba. The order was based on the ground that Thakur was not an elected member of the HPBA, which he intended to represent in the Electoral College.

Essentially, Singh's impugned order provided that electoral representation in the upcoming polls would be restricted to only elected members of affiliated state units.

Challenging the same, HPCA moved the HC seeking a declaration that the March 7 Notification was null and void, as it was ultra vires the Memorandum of Association of BFI and in violation of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.

It was contended that regarding the Articles of Association, Rules and Regulations of the Federation, each State Association, like petitioner No. 1, can nominate two Members to the Electoral College, who represent the State Unit, as far as the Electoral College is concerned.

It was strongly argued that the notice issued by Respondent No. 2 (Ajay Singh) was beyond his authority, and the same was arbitrary.

They contended that the notice issued by Ajay Singh imposed an arbitrary condition, requiring nominees to be elected members of the State Unit. They argued that this condition was not stated in the BFI's official rules or regulations.

In other words, it was submitted that the BFI's rules allow each State Association to nominate two representatives to the Electoral College and that there is no restriction that these representatives must be elected members of the State Association.

Deputy Solicitor General of India also submitted that once the term of the office bearers expired on 02.02.2025, respondent No. 2 (Singh) had no authority in law to issue any Notice, as has been issued by him, in his capacity of President of the Federation.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for Singh argued that the petitioners are not entitled to any interim as prayed for as he submitted that the petitioners have accepted the authority of respondent No. 2 as far as his power to issue the impugned is concerned and further as the rejection of the nomination is by the Returning Officer, who is not impleaded as a party-respondent, therefore, no interim can be granted.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court examined the Rules and Regulations of the Boxing Federation of India to note that it inter alia provides that the membership of the Boxing Federation of India is open to all State Boxing Associations, which have a governing body controlling boxing.

Furthermore, the Court also noted that the Electoral College, inter alia consist of two voters who are to be nominated by each member association and the nomination or representation of each member association is to be by two member representatives authorized by the President or General Secretary/ Secretary of the association.

The Court observed that there is no rider mentioned in the Rules and Regulations that only those persons can be nominated as members by a member association, who are duly elected members during the election AGM duly notified to BFI of the State Unites etc., as has been ordained by respondent No.2 (Singh).

In view of this, the Court concluded that prima facie, the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2 (Singh) was without any authority and without any power under the Rules and Regulations of the Federation, which supplants the provisions of the Rule and Regulations and does violence with them.

“That being the case, the rejection of the nomination of one of the members, namely, Mr. Anurag Singh Thakur, nominated by petitioner No.1 in terms of impugned Annexure P-10, which is a list of Electoral College, dated 12.03.2025, as well as Annexure P-14, dated 13.03.2025, which the final list of Electoral College approved by the Returning Officer is prima facie bad and not sustainable in law,” the bench held.

Against this backdrop, the Court also found that the balance of convenience was also in favour of the petitioners, and if interim relief, as prayed for by the petitioners, is not granted, then they will suffer irreparable loss.

Accordingly, as an ad-interim measure, the Court stayed the operation of Notice, as well as the rejection of the nomination of one of the two nominated members by the Association (Anurag Singh Thakur) and directed respondent No.3-Federation to treat the nomination of Thakur along with the nomination of Mr. Rajesh Bhandari to be a valid nomination for the Electoral College by the Association and proceed with the election process.

The Court further directed that respondents extend the last date of nomination submission to enable Thakur to file his nomination and be permitted to represent the petitioner-association in the Annual General Meeting and fully participate therein.

Senior Advocate Abhinav Mukerji, with Advocates Chaitanya Mahajan, Amit Kumar Dhumal, Richa Thakur, Parul Negi, Padamja Sharma and Devang Sharma, appeared for the petitioner Association 

Case title - Himachal Pradesh Boxing Association and another vs. Union of India and others

Click Here To Read/Download Order