Badminton Association Case : Supreme Court Sets Aside HC's Stay On BAI Diktat Against Players Playing In 'Unrecognised Tournaments'

The Supreme Court observed that the ex-parte interim order passed by the High Court was in the teeth of the Apex Court’s judgment in Devraj v. State of Maharashtra, Appeal (civil) 2084 of 2004 where it was held that relief in the nature of final relief cannot be granted at the interim stage unless a very strong prima facie case is established.

Case Background

The BAI had issued circulars on April 10 and July 5, warning players not to participate in “unrecognized tournaments”. The same was challenged before the Karnataka High Court, which stayed the operation of the BAI’s circular. As a result of this stay, the High Court allowed participation of Indian shuttlers in Grand Prix Badminton League Season 2, scheduled to be held from August 27 to September 9. Further, the High Court Court also refrained from respondent authority from taking any coercive action. It recorded:

“Stay of impugned circulars; further, respondent No.2 is restrained from taking any coercive action against badminton players, coaches & technical staff who are registered with it pursuant to the impugned circulars.”

It is worth mentioning that in the impugned order, Karnataka High Court has passed order after placing its reliance on the Delhi High Court decision in between M/S Sara Foundation Vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) 3469/2017.

In the matter of M/S Sara Foundation, the petitioner is a Non-Government Organisation (NGO) and had filed the petition impugning a communication dated 19.04.2017 issued by BAI inter alia restraining all players registered with it, not to participate in PNB Metlife Junior Badminton Championship (which was to commence on 24.04.2017) and other such tournaments, which BAI did not recognize.

 Courtroom Exchange in Supreme Court

As the proceedings commenced, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the BAI, referred to the impugned order and submitted that next date shown is in the year 2025. It must be noted that as per the records, case is tentatively listed on June 19, 2025.

After the aforementioned submission, Divan averred: “After Delhi High Court order, let me answer it straightaway, we amended the rule”

At this, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for the respondents, interjected, saying, “Under the Karnataka High Court Act, this is an appealable order under Section 3. Because they have come up against ex-parte order.” Divan retorted, saying that we have come up because this is an all-India problem.

However, dissatisfied with Mehta’s submission, Justice Datta said that in ex-parte order principal relief cannot be granted. Mehta tried to convince the Bench, stating that it is only stay of the circular and not quashing.

Justice Datta stated: “Stay is only operative till the time matter is finally heard and what is the grave urgency that the other side cannot be put on notice before granting this relief.”

Mehta replied by stating that the advance notice was served upon the other party.

Justice Datta, however, stated that in the present petition, its jurisdiction cannot be invoked to consider whether the concerned party is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.

At the stage, Justice Bela M. Trivedi asserted: “We will set aside the order and let the HC decide.”

Mehta expressed his concerns that the tournament is starting on August 27, 2023.

Not convinced by the argument, Justice Datta said: “If these were the considerations, the Ld. judge should have indicated in the order.”

Mehta: “I understand that.”

Mehta requested before the Bench that this is the second season. The idea is to encourage sports. He also pointed out that the impugned order is of 21 July, and almost one month has passed.

However, Bench returned the matter to the High Court for re-examination and acceded to Mehta's request of not expressing anything on merits in the order.

Case Title: BADMINTON ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. BITSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, SLP(C) No. 17855/2023