W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 1 of 32

$~J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment pronounced on: 02.02.2026

+ W.P.(C) 5736/2025 and CM APPLs.26168/2025, 31973/2025

ALL INDIA PICKLEBALL ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate

along with Mr. Gautam Narayan,

Mr. Hemant Phalpher, Mr. R. A. Iyer,

Ms. Disha Joshi and Mr. Sukrit Seth,

Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate along

with Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC,

Mr. Aakash Pathak, GP, Ms. Pinky

Pawar, Mr. Sainyam Bhardwaj,

Advocates and Mr. Mohd. Zeeshan,

Consultant for UOI.

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate

along with Mr. Ashish Verma,

Mr. Saksham Thareja, Mr. Nikhil

Thakur and Mr. Kartikey Bhargava,

Advocates for R-2.

Mr. D. N. Goburdhan, Sr. Advocate

along with Mr. Kunal Kohli,

Ms. Shreyha Kohli, Advocates for

proposed Respondent no.3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DAT TA

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is an association incorporated on 12.12.2008 for the

purpose of promoting and developing the sport of Pickleball. The petitioner

claims entitlement to recognition as the National Sports Federation (NSF)

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 2 of 32

for the sport of Pickleball in India.

2. For this purpose, the petitioner submitted an application dated

18.10.2024 to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS). However,

instead of recognising the petitioner, the MYAS issued an order dated

25.04.2025 recognising the respondent no.2, i.e., the Indian Pickleball

Association (IPA), as the NSF for promotion and development of the sport

of Pickleball in the country. The said order dated 25.04.2025 reads as

under:-

“No. 10-2/2025/SP-I

Government of India

Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports

Department of Sports

Hall No. 101, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi

Date: 25.04.2025

To,

The President/ Secretary General,

Indian Pickleball Association,

2nd Floor, Rituraj chambers,

Swastik Society, Off C.G . Road,

Ahmedabad - 380009

Email: indianpickleballofficial@gmail.com

Subject: Recognition of Indian Pickleball Association(IPA) as the

National Sports Federation for promotion and development of sport of

Pickleball in the country - reg.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to Indian Pickleball Association's request on the

subject mentioned above and to say that the Ministry of Youth Affairs &

Sports agrees to recognize the Indian Pickleball Association (IPA) as a

National Sports Federation (NSF).

2. This recognition to IPA means granting a major role to the Indian

Pickleball Association for promotion and development of the Pickleball

sport in India. The recognition has been granted after relaxation of

following provisions of the National Sports Development. Code of India,

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 3 of 32

2011:

(i) Requirement of three year existence of the federation/ association

(para 3 .3 of Annexure-11 of the Sports Code 2011);

(ii) Requirement of affiliation of a State/UT unit with at least 50%

district level associations affiliated to it (para 3.10 and 3.19 of

Annexure-11 of the Sports Code 2011);

3. The IPA will be under observation with respect to compliance with

Sports Code and for a period of two years will not be eligible for funding

under the Scheme of Assistance to National Sports Federations.

4. The recognition of Government is subject to continued observance of

the following terms and conditions:

a) The Office bearers of the Association shall invariably be

appointed by election as per t he Model Election Guidelines issued

by the Ministry. The various instructions issued by the Ministry,

from time to time, including the age and tenure criteria, for holding

the elective offices of the Association shall be scrupulously

followed.

b) The Association shall give at least two months' advance notice to

the Government for any change in its Constitution. The copy of the

proposed changes should invariably be sent along with the notice.

c) The Association must maintain its accounts as per the

Mercantile System of accounting. The Accounting year should be

from 1st April to 31st March. The books of accounts shall always

be open to Inspection by authorized representatives of the

Government.

d) The accounts of the Association must be audited by a practicing

Chartered Accountant. Audited Statement of account should be sent

to the Union Government within six months from the date of expiry

of the accounting year.

e) The Association must scrupulously abide by the guidelines of the

Government issued from time to time, for the conduct of National

Championships, drawing of advance calendar for holding National

Championships, players' grievance system in the management of

the Association, etc.

f) The Association shall have corresponding State/UT bodies

affiliated to it in all the State/UTs in conformity with the provisions

of the Sports Code.

g) The Association should also abide by the directions of the

Government issued, if any, in the interest of promotion of pickleball

sports among its players or Public in general.

h) The recognition can be reviewed by the Government in case

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 4 of 32

Memorandum of Association (MOA) of the Association or its

practices come into conflict with the Govt. Guidelines issued from

time to me.

i) The Ministry's guidelines for selection procedure shall be

followed by IPA. The tournaments shall be held for Men & Women

at all levels in National, State, District level for Senior, Junior and

Sub-Junior.

j) The Association shall scrupulously follow the Ministry's

guidelines on RTI applicability and suo-moto disclosure of

information on its website and appointment of a Public Information

Officer and an Appellate Authority.

k) The Association shall ensure strict compliance of the

Government guidelines relating to age fraud, prevention of sexual

harassment of women in sports, formation of Internal Complaint

Committee in accordance with the provisions of the POSH Act,

2013, Anti-doping, issuance of identity cards to sportspersons etc.

5. The recognition may be withdrawn if:

a) any of the terms and conditions of the recognition are violated;

b) its own Constitution is violated;

c) directions issued by the Union Government are not complied

with as required;

d) in the opinion of the Union Government, the Association is not

functioning properly;

e) the recognition has been obtained by submitting false

information or by mis-representation of facts;

f) the concerned international Federation cancels affiliation or

derecognizes or disaffiliates the Association.

This issues with the approval of competent authority.

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-

(Surendra Yadav)

Under Secretary to the Government of India”

3. In the above conspectus, the present petition has been filed by the

petitioner assailing the inaction of the respondent no.1 (MYAS) in

considering the petitioner’s application for recognition as the NSF for the

sport of Pickleball, as well as the action of the MYAS in allowing the

application for recognition filed by the respondent no.2 (IPA).

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 5 of 32

4. It is the case of the petitioner that it has been in existence since the

year 2008, i.e., for about 18 years, and has been actively promoting and

developing the sport of Pickleball in India.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner obtained recognition from the

International Pickleball Federation in 2010, when it was known as the

International Federation of Pickleball. The petitioner also claims to be a

founding member of the Asia Federation of Pickleball.

6. The petitioner asserts that it has 24 State Associations and about

10,000 players affiliated with it. It is contended that since 2013, the

petitioner has organised eight annual national championships for Pickleball

in the country, in addition to two Indian Open Tournaments in 2017 and

2018. It is further contended that the petitioner managed to secure the rights

to host the Bainbridge Cup in India at Mumbai in 2022, with Team India

winning against Pickleball United, a team formed with players from around

the world.

7. The petitioner claims to be in compliance with the National Sports

Development Code of India, 2011 (‘Sports Code’). The petitioner submits

that the respondent no.2 (IPA) is an entity registered on 11.11.2024.

8. It is alleged that the said Association is in violation of at least 13

provisions of the Sports Code and is even in violation of the bare minimum

requirements of being in existence for three years and having a written

constitution. The petitioner submits that the rampant violations of the

provisions of the Sports Code by the respondent no. 2 have been wholly

disregarded by the respondent no.1 while granting recognition.

9. Further, it is submitted that the exemption granted to the respondent

no.2 for two infractions of the Sports Code is without any basis or rationale

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 6 of 32

whatsoever.

10. It is alleged that the IPA has set up bogus entities, claiming them to be

International Federations and Asian Federations, but in reality, these entities

exist only on paper and have no relation to the sport of Pickleball, nor have

they conducted any events.

11. It is submitted that the IPA is essentially attempting to fraudulently

usurping the position of an NSF for the sport of Pickleball, having done

nothing to support, develop, or grow the sport in India.

12. It is submitted that the inaction of the Ministry in considering the

application for recognition of the petitioner, and in granting recognition to

the IPA, smacks of arbitrariness and mala fide. Neither have reasons been

supplied, nor has any material been produced to support the recognition or

the exemption granted to the IPA.

13. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2, it has

been contended that the Sports Code provides for the recognition of National

Sports Federations and the observance of best practices by recognised

Federations, as stipulated in the Sports Code, along with support and

assistance to Federations recognized by the respondent no.1 under the said

Code. The Sports Code is stated to be an amalgamation of guidelines issued

by the respondent no.1 from time to time.

14. Vide Notification dated 01.02.2021, a relaxation provision was

introduced in the Sports Code. The said notification reads as follows:-

“No. 12-2/2021-SP-III

Government of India

Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports

Department of Sports

Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 7 of 32

1

st

February, 2021

Sub: National Sports Development Code of India, 2011- inclusion of

relaxation provision – regarding

The National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (Sports

Code) has been in force since 31.01.2011. The Government has also,

from time to time, issued certain other guidelines and instructions with

regard to governance and management of Indian Olympic Association

(IOA) and National Sports Federations (NSFs). It has been decided to

add the following relaxation clause provision at No. 16 under the

Heading of Relaxation Clause of the Sports Code 2011 at page 32:

Relaxation clause:

"Government shall have the power to relax any of the provisions of the

National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 and other instructions

issued with regard to recognition of National Sports Federations (NSFs),

renewal of recognition of NSFs on annual basis and governance and

management of Indian Olympic Association (JOA) and NSFs, as a

special exemption where considered necessary and expedient for the

promotion of sports, sportspersons or to remove difficulties in giving true

effect to that particular provision of the Sports Code, always being

guided by and not inconsistent with the overarching spirit of good

governance and ethical conduct enshrined in the Sports Code 2011. The

reasons for such relaxation shall be recorded in writing. Power to relax

the provisions will vest with Minister In-charge of the Ministry of Youth

Affairs & Sports."

2. This issues with the approval of Minister of State (Independent

Charge) for Youth Affairs & Sports.

Sd/-

(L. Siddhartha Singh)

Joint Secretary to the Government of India”

15. It is submitted that the inclusion of the aforesaid relaxation clause was

guided by the practical need to address situations where the rigid application

of the provisions of the Sports Code could lead to unfair or unintended

outcomes. The relaxation clause gives MYAS limited and considered

flexibility to relax specific provisions in deserving or extraordinary cases

where strict adherence to the Sports Code would create more problems than

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 8 of 32

solutions. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in Rajasthan Equestrian Association v. Union of India & Ors., 2025

SCC OnLine Del 14, which has upheld the validity of the said relaxation

clause.

16. As such, it is contended that there is nothing untoward about the

exemption granted to the respondent no.2 vide the impugned order dated

25.04.2025.

17. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 is a not-for-profit company

duly incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, by the

members of the State Pickleball Association, a trust registered under the

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, on 22.08.2019 in the State of Gujarat. The

said incorporation was undertaken with the specific object of promoting,

regulating, and advancing the sport of Pickleball in India at the national

level.

18. It is asserted that the decision to incorporate a separate legal entity

under Section 8 was taken in compliance with the Sports Code and other

applicable policies and statutory requirements stipulated by the MYAS.

19. It is contended that the State Pickleball Association, prior to such

transition and the creation of the respondent no.2 (IPA), had already

established a strong operational legacy through the organization of a series

of successful state and national tournaments, including but not limited to:

(i) 1

st

Gujarat Open Pickleball Tournament (March 2020),

(ii) Asia Flex League India – Gujarat (December 2020),

(iii) Gujarat Open Pickleball Tournament (August 2021),

(iv) 1

st

Pickleball National Championship (March 2022),

(v) Gujarat State Pickleball Ranking Tournament – Road to Nationals

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 9 of 32

(July 2023),

(vi) 3

rd

National Pickleball Championship (December 2023),

(vii) Dinkers Pickleball Open (March 2024), and

(viii) Gujarat Pickleball Premier League (GPPL) (June 2024).

20. It is submitted that the State Pickleball Association, then formally

resolved to transition its functions, responsibilities, experience, and

institutional legacy to the respondent no.2. Thereafter, an application for

recognition as an NSF was made in the name of the respondent no.2. It is

further contended that the respondent no.2 was incorporated at the behest of

players, athletes and sportspersons of repute. It is contended that:

 The Memorandum of Association (MOA) and Articles of Association

(AOA) conform to the provisions of the Sports Code.

 The Executive Board has been constituted as per the Sports Code,

comprising eminent players, technical experts, and individuals

actively involved in sports and allied activities.

 Representation of women on the Board meets the standards prescribed

by the Government.

 The individuals associated with the organization are distinguished by

their merit and have demonstrated excellence in the fields of sports

and public life.

 State associations under the organization are led by notable

personalities, including accomplished sportsmen and sportswomen,

which is a key feature deserving emphasis.

21. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 has established robust

international relations with recognized global bodies and has fulfilled the

technical requirements essential for the promotion and development of

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 10 of 32

Pickleball in India.

22. It is emphasized that the respondent no.2 is recognized by the Global

Pickleball Federation (GPF), which is a premier international federation for

the sports of Pickleball worldwide. It was started by the USA Pickleball

(USAP). It is asserted that the GPF is the most influential international

governing body for pickleball. It was formed in 2023 by USA Pickleball in

collaboration with national federations from 28 countries. The GPF is

headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The GPF currently comprises

over 70 member countries and operates in coordination with various

continental federations, including the Pickleball Federation of the Americas,

the Confederation of African Pickleball, the Oceania Pickleball Federation,

the Asian Pickleball Association, and several European member nations. It

is submitted that the USA Pickleball is the oldest governing body for the

sport and continues to remain the recognized rule-making authority and that

the GPF was not established by the Asian Pickleball Association or the

Indian Pickleball Association.

23. It is further submitted that while there is presently no unified global

governing body for the sport of Pickleball that has been formally recognized

by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the GPF is the most

prominent and credible contender for such recognition. The GPF is

composed of a representative board consisting of national federations and

governing entities from leading Pickleball-playing nations, which are

acknowledged as pioneers and key stakeholders in the global development

of the sport. It is submitted that the GPF also functions as the rule-making

authority for the sport, having framed the official rules that are universally

followed in international competitions.

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 11 of 32

24. The respondent no.2 has emphasized its track record, credentials and

the activities being undertaken by it at the national level to justify the grant

of recognition to it as an NSF. The respondent no.2 further asserts that the

petitioner lacks the locus to raise any objections in this regard. It is

submitted that the petitioner’s functioning is marked by a lack of

transparency, fairness and inclusivity.

25. It is further contended that the petitioner is non-compliant with the

Government Guidelines on Good Governance, in the context of ‘Basic

Universal Principles of Good Governance of Olympic and Sports

Movement, which is an essential part of the Sports Code. As per the

Olympic Charter, a person holding the post of president of an international

federation cannot simultaneously hold any post in a domestic federation. It

is emphasized that contrary to the said guideline, Mr. Arvind Prabhoo,

President of the petitioner, simultaneously holds the post of President of the

International Pickleball Federation, leading to a direct conflict of interest

and a breach of the good governance norms under the Sports Code,

Annexure XIV Clause 5 of which stipulates “Adequate procedural

regulations must exist to ensure there is no conflict of Interests”.

26. It is further contended that the petitioner has further tried to mislead

this Court by asserting that it has been recognized by the Indian Olympic

Association (IOA) and hence should have been considered for being

recognized as NSF.

27. It is submitted that upon a bare perusal of the communications

exchanged between the President of the IOA and the petitioner, it is evident

that the petitioner had misled the IOA. The petitioner had incorrectly

represented to the IOA that it had been recognized by the international body

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 12 of 32

regulating the sport of pickleball.

28. Furthermore, it is submitted that the communication issued by the

IOA is only provisional and is subject to being voted upon in its next Annual

General Body Meeting. It is emphasized that the pre-requisite for

membership of IOA as per Clause 3.1 (Rules and Regulation of the IOA

Constitution) is that only an NSF can apply for its membership. It is

submitted that despite not satisfying the said prerequisite, the petitioner

applied to the IOA.

29. It is submitted that post recognition of the respondent no.2 as NSF, it

has applied to the IOA for recognition.

30. In the circumstances, it is asserted that the respondent no.1 has rightly

issued the order dated 25.04.2025, whereby recognition has been accorded

to the respondent no.2 as the NSF for the sport of pickleball in the country.

It is emphasized that such recognition is subject to the continued observance

of the terms and conditions stipulated therein and is susceptible to be

withdrawn if:

“a) any of the terms and conditions of the recognition are violated;

b) its own Constitution is violated;

c) directions issued by the Union Government are not complied with as

required;

d) in the opinion of the Union Government, the Association is not

functioning properly;

e) the recognition has been obtained by submitting false information or

by mis-representation of facts;

f) the concerned international Federation cancels affiliation or

derecognizes or disaffiliates the Association.”

31. Before adverting to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 13 of 32

of India / MYAS, it is important to take note of CM APPL. 31973/2025,

filed by an entity called “New Indian Pickleball Association”. The said

applicant has sought to strongly refute the assertion of the respondent no.2

that it is the successor-in-interest of the “State Pickleball Association” and /

or that it has organized the following championships:

(i) 1

st

Pickleball National Championship (March 2022),

(ii) 3

rd

National Pickleball Championship (December 2023)

32. It is submitted that the predecessor in interest of the respondent no.2,

viz., the State Pickleball Association, was a constituent state member of the

applicant from January 2022 to 2024. In support of this assertion, reliance is

sought to be placed on certain documents.

33. It is contended that the respondent no.2 is indulging in fraud by

claiming to have conducted two national championships in Pickleball,

despite the fact that the same were conducted under the aegis and

supervision of the applicant. Specific reliance is placed on certain letters

addressed by the “State Pickleball Association” of Gujarat to contend that

from a perusal of the letterheads on which the said communications were

addressed, it is evident that the said State body was affiliated with the

applicant and an international body, namely, World Pickleball Association

(WPF).

34. It is contended that in 2024, some individuals sought to usurp control

of the Applicant and accordingly a complaint dated 15.07.2024 was filed by

the General Secretary of the Applicant before the office of the District

Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bengaluru, Karnataka. Vide order dated

23.12.2024, which was issued against seven persons, including three persons

claiming to be Executive Members of the Respondent No. 2 herein,

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 14 of 32

including the person who filed the Counter Affidavit on behalf of

Respondent No.2 after duly hearing them, held that the documents set up by

the said persons claiming to be in control of the Applicant were rejected, and

the said persons were directed to not conduct any events or business in the

name of the Applicant in CM APPL. 31973/2025. The relevant portion of

the order 15.07.2024 is as under:

“Furthermore, directions are issued to Mr. Surya Veer Singh Bhullar,

Mr. Prabhat Mani Vats, Mr. Alap Sharma, Mr. Manu D, Mr. Kishore

Nippadkar, Mr. K. Kumar, and Ms. Nazneen Rahman, instructing them

not to use the name and address of New India Pickleball Association,

No.289, 7th Main, 9th Cross, Nrupathunga Nagar, Nagarabhavi,

Bengaluru– 560072 (Registration No.: DRB-1/SOR/223/2021-22) for any

correspondence, events, or sports activities with any authorities. Failing

to adhere to this, the affected parties are at liberty to take appropriate

legal action before the competent authority.”

35. It is vehemently urged that the respondent No.2 is trying to take

benefit of National Events conducted under the aegis, guidance and

supervision of the Applicant in CM APPL. 31973/2025, the credentials of

which, for the grant of recognition as an NSF, can only be given to the

National Body. It is averred that having failed in their attempt to usurp the

Applicant Association by the order of the District Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, Bengaluru, Karnataka, the Respondent No.2 is now trying to

usurp the credentials of National events conducted by the Applicant. The

recognition given by the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.2, based on

the misrepresentation of having held the said National Events would

impliedly accord an accreditation to the Respondent No.2 for the same,

thereby causing the Applicant to suffer civil consequences without being

given a hearing.

36. The respondent no.2 has refuted the allegations sought to be made in

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 15 of 32

the aforesaid CM APPL.31973/2025. It is contended that the application has

been filed by the Mr. Rajath Kankar, erstwhile Secretary General of the New

Indian Pickleball Association. However, the same is unsupported by any

Resolution authorizing him to institute these proceedings. It is submitted that

to the best of the knowledge of Respondent No. 2, Rajath Kankar has been

removed as the Secretary General of New Indian Pickleball by the President

of the New Indian Pickleball Association, i.e., Ashok Mohanani for

disciplinary reasons for making unilateral announcement of merger with the

Petitioner (AIPA). It is further contended that the said application, having

been filed by a person without any locus standi, does not warrant

consideration and is liable to be dismissed at the outset.

37. It is further submitted that the factual assertions made in CM APPL.

31973/2025 are demonstrably incorrect. Contrary to the claim that the

National Tournament was conducted by the Applicant, it is submitted that

the said event was organized by the State Pickleball Association, and the

Applicant was only a participating member in the event.

38. The counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India,

wherein, it has been sought as under:

“9) That without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the

petitioner's grievance regarding non-consideration of his application

dated 18.10.2024 is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. It is

submitted that the Ministry duly considered the Petitioner's application

dated 18.10.2024 along with that of Respondent No.2. After a detailed

comparative assessment in accordance with the Sports Code, and in the

interest of developing a structured governance mechanism for the sport of

Pickleball, recognition was granted to Respondent No. 2. The claim that

the Petitioner's application was not considered is factually incorrect and

legally untenable.

10) That the Sports Code in Clause 3.10 clearly stipulates that the at the

National Level there will only be one recognised federation for each

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 16 of 32

discipline of the sport.

11) That vide order dated 25.04.2025, the Ministry has granted

recognition to the Indian Pickleball Association (IP A) as the NSF for

Pickleball in India. The recognition was accorded after following due

process, including the grant of necessary relaxation of certain provisions

of the National Sports Code, wherever considered necessary and

expedient. Since recognition has been granted, the application of the

Petitioner does not survive. Hence, the petitioner's claim stands

considered, and no further cause of action survives.”

39. It has been averred as under:

“16) It is submitted that the Ministry's decision to grant recognition to

Respondent No. 2 viz., IPA was taken after examining its adherence to the

applicable provisions of the Sports Code, particularly those concerning

institutional governance, athlete representation, and national outreach.

The decision was informed by comparative merit and the larger objective

of strengthening India's presence in emerging international sports

disciplines.

17) It is submitted that the Indian Pickleball Association (IPA) was duly

considered and examined by the Ministry based on the information as

provided by the organisation and as per the information available on their

website. Upon such consideration it was found that the IP A was in

compliance with the following essential provisions of the Sports Code:

i) Age & tenure guideline

ii) 25% Sportsperson representation in Executive Committee

iii)Tenure Restriction on Civil Servant in Executive Committee

iv) Election procedure as contained in Model Election guideline

under the Sports Code

v) One state/UT- One member association

vi) Athlete Commission and Ethics Commission

vii)Provisions for Anti-Doping, age fraud and prevention of sexual

harassment of women

18) It is submitted that it was further found that the IP A has 26 affiliated

State/UT units, thereby meeting the requirement for representation in at

least two-thirds of India's States/UTs as enshrined in Clause 3.4 of the

Annexure-II of the Sports Code.

19) It is submitted that so far as condition requiring affiliation with an

International Federation is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that

presently there is no IOC-recognised International Federation. As per the

information available with the Ministry as well as in the public domain, at

international levels, Pickleball governance is currently fragmented among

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 17 of 32

three major organizations: the International Pickleball Federation (IPF),

the World Pickleball Federation (WPF), and the Global Pickleball

Federation (GPF).

20) It is respectfully submitted that, in the absence of an IOC-recognised

international federation for Pickleball, the affiliations of competing

entities were evaluated. The affiliation of IP A with the Global Pickleball

Federation (GPF), which has a wider international footprint than the

Petitioner's affiliating body, was considered a significant factor in favour

of IPA, given the need for effective international representation. The

Global Pickleball Federation (GPF) with 63 member nations holds more

substantial international presence compared to the International

Pickleball Federation (IPF), which has only 14 full member countries and

65 provisional member countries.

21) That analogous to the power of laying out certain guidelines for grant

of recognition to the NSFs are the powers of the Ministry to grant certain

exemptions/relaxations to the guidelines. It is submitted that that the

Respondent No.1/Uol is conscious of the fact that such grant of relaxation

to the NSFs must be non-arbitrary and reasonable and it should be purely

in the interest of sports and sportspersons. The relaxation clause, which is

an integral part of the Sports Code included therein vide letter dated

01.02.2021, reads as under:-

Clause No.16 Relaxation Clause:

"Government shall have the power to relax any of the provisions of the

National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 and other instructions

issued with regard to recognition of National Sports Federations (NSFs),

renewal of recognition of NSFs on annual basis and governance and

management of Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and NSFs, as a special

exemption where considered necessary and expedient for the promotion of

sports, sportspersons or to remove difficulties in giving true effect to that

particular provision of the Sports Code, always being guided by and not

inconsistent with the overarching spirit of good governance and ethical

conduct enshrined in the Sports Code 2011. The reasons for such

relaxation shall be recorded in writing. Power to relax the provisions will

vest with Minister In-charge of the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports.”

22) It is submitted that IP A in its application requested for a temporary

exemption from the requirement that its State/UT affiliates must have at

least 50% district-level bodies. Considering IPA's higher compliance with

the Sports Code, stronger global affiliations, wider national reach, and

the growing popularity of pickle ball worldwide, the relaxation of these

conditions' merits consideration, and as such in exercise of the Powers

laid down under Clause 16 of the Sports Code, the Answering Respondent

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 18 of 32

considered it necessary and appropriate to limited exemptions/relaxations

in terms of two clauses of the Code. Relaxations were granted to:

(i) Requirement of three year existence of the federation /

association (para 3.3 of Annexure-II of the Sports Code, 2011);

(ii)Requirement of affiliation of a State/UT unit with at least 50%

district level associations affiliated to it (para 3.10 and 3.19 of

Annexure-II of the Sports Code, 2011);

These relaxations were granted in furtherance of the objective of

promoting an emerging sport and in view of IPA's otherwise substantial

compliance with the Code.

23) That it is submitted that the power to grant recognition and to grant

the aforesaid two exemptions were policy decisions of the Answering

Ministry which were under taken after due consideration of the

emerging but nascent nature of the sport as well as the need and desire

for promoting and developing the sport of Pickleball in the Country.

xxx xxx xxx

25) It is submitted that this Ministry received applications from two

organisations namely, All India Pickeball Association (AIPA) and Indian

Pickle ball Association (IP A) requesting for grant of recognition as NSFs

for the Sports of Pickleball. Both the applications/proposals were

considered and examined by this Ministry based on the information as

provided by the above Sports organisation, information as available on

their website and in light of provisions and guidelines as contained under

the Sports Code, and the following was observed:

a) The Constitution ofthe IPA was found to be broadly aligned with

the key provisions of the National Sports Code, whereas the

Constitution of the AlP A lacked several mandatory provisions

required under the Sports Code, rendering it non-compliant.

b) During examination it was noted that the IP A has 26 affiliated

State/UT units, thereby meeting the requirement for representation

in at least two-thirds of India's States/UTs, whereas AIPA has 21

State/UT units, making it noncompliant with the condition of

affiliation of 213rct State/UT associations as enshrined in Clause

3.4 of the Annexure-II of the Sports Code.

c) Further, it was observed that the IP A is affiliated with the

Global Pickleball Federation (GPF), which comprises 63 member

nations, demonstrating a more extensive international presence

compared to affiliation of the AIPA with the International

Pickleball Federation (IPF), which has only 14 full member

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 19 of 32

countries and 65 provisional member countries.

26) That it is submitted that, in view of the foregoing paras and factual

position as enumerated above, it is clear that the Ministry order dated

25.04.2025 is the outcome of a well-considered and reasoned decision

taken upon examination of the proposals received from AIPA (Petitioner)

and IPA (Respondent No. 2) based on their compliance status,

membership strength and International affiliations for promoting and

developing the sport of Pickleball in India. This decision was taken in

accordance with the applicable provisions of the National Sports

Development Code of India, 2011, after due consideration of the

proposals received by this Ministry, including that of the Petitioner.

xxx xxx xxx

29) In light of above facts and circumstances, it is respectfully submitted

that the recognition granted to the Indian Pickleball Association vide

Ministry order dated 25.04.2025, was done in full compliance with the

relevant provisions and guidelines. Further, considering IP A's higher

compliance with the Sports Code; stronger global affiliations; affiliation

of members in 2/3rd States/UTs of the country, giving IPA a wider

national reach; the growing popularity of pickleball worldwide, and the

need to develop a robust Pickleball sporting ecosystem in the Country, the

relaxations granted to IPA were not only justified but also expedient.

Further, as stated above, the petitioner's application has already been

considered by this Ministry, and in view of the extreme non-compliance

with the provisions of the Sports Code, the same was deemed rejected. In

view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the impugned order

dated 25.04.2025 was passed after due consideration and in accordance

with the Sports Code. The Petitioner's claims are unfounded and

unsupported by any enforceable legal right. The Petition, therefore,

deserves to be dismissed in limine.”

CASE LAW CITED BY RESPECTIVE COUNSEL :-

40. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has sought to contend that

grant of exemptions to the respondent no.2 results in a violation of the order

dated 26.05.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Rahul Mehra

v. Union of India, [W.P.(C) 8691/2020]. Reliance is placed on the following

observations therein:

“7. Various judgments have held that compliance with the Sports Code is

a must. It is the sine qua non for grant of recognition as a NSF and for

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 20 of 32

access to the corollary benefits that flow from such status. The benefits are

in various forms: tax benefits, travel concessions, accommodation and

hospitality accorded to players and officials of NSFs, use of government-

owned stadia and sports facilities, etc. All this expense is made from

public funds. The beneficiary of such funds and facilities must qualify in

law, to access it. Unless a NSF/sports entity/registered society/Association

strictly adheres to and fully complies with the Sports Code and the court

orders, it would disentitle itself from any such benefit. There can be no let-

up or latitude in this regard, as relaxation would be arbitrary, illegal and

lend to dilution of the Sports Code. No NSF or Sports Entity should be

seen to be receiving benefits which are unjust. Fairness and legitimacy

need to imbue all governmental affairs. Therefore, it is prudent, indeed

imperative that no further exemptions be granted to or lenience be shown

to noncompliant NSFs. There comes a stage in the affairs of governance

when the recalcitrant have to be called-out and there has to be cessation

of their unlawfully enjoying government largesse, a privilege for which

they do not qualify. Nor can they be allowed with their faulty NSF status

to generate revenues from other sources. Twelve years is a long time to

enable sports bodies to conform to the Sports Code. The time to stop is

now.”

41. It is sought to be emphasized that the aforesaid observations were

made in light of the fact that the said Division Bench was seized of the

challenge to the notification dated 01.02.2021, in the context of CM

APPL.5435/2021 filed in W.P.(C) 8691/2020.

42. It is submitted that the observations in the said order dated 26.05.2022

were reiterated by this Court in an order dated 09.09.2022 passed in W.P.(C)

8691/2020.

43. It is submitted that the judgment dated 16.08.2022 in Rahul Mehra v.

Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC Online Del 2438, squarely applies to

all NSFs and in terms thereof, the full rigor of the Sports Code is to be made

applicable to every constituent of every NSF. It is urged that the respondent

no.1 / MYAS is not entitled to grant recognition or any facility to any NSF

and / or any affiliated association if it is not compliant with the Sports Code.

44. It is submitted that the judgment relied upon by the MYAS,

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 21 of 32

Rajasthan Equestrian Association vs UOI, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 14,

pertains to an exemption/ relaxation given to the Equestrian Federation of

India on 9.11.2021, i.e., prior to the passing of the Division Bench’s order

dated 26.05.2022. Hence, it would have no applicability in the present

matter, as the exemption/ relaxation given by the MYAS is subsequent to the

Division Bench’s order dated 26.05.2022. Even otherwise the impugned

order is in violation to this particular judgment, as this Court has noted that

the relaxation given in this particular case of Equestrian Federation is

without any rationale, with no evidence provided, no fact-finding exercise to

verify the averments of the EFI etc.

45. Thus, it is urged that the respondent no.2 is not even remotely

eligible, under the Sports Code, to be recognized as an NSF.

46. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 placed strong reliance

on the observations of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajasthan

Equestrian Association v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), and particularly

Paragraphs 10 to 13 thereof, which reads as under:

“10. The Petitioner has argued that the introduction of the Relaxation

Clause is arbitrary and unreasonable. However, the Court finds no

infirmity in the executive authority to introduce such a provision. It is

well-established that the executive, in the absence of legislative

prohibition, has the power to frame policies and guidelines to achieve the

objectives of national development. The Courts refrain from interfering

with policy decisions unless they are arbitrary, manifestly unreasonable,

or violate statutory or constitutional mandates. The Supreme Court in

various judgments has held that policy decisions are within the domain of

the executive and are not ordinarily subject to judicial review unless they

are shown to be in violation of constitutional or legal provisions.

11. The Clause, is a policy decision aimed at addressing practical

difficulties in the implementation of the Sports Code. It provides a

framework for granting exemptions in exceptional circumstances where it

is deemed “necessary and expedient” for the promotion of sports,

sportspersons, or for resolving specific challenges faced by NSFs. This

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 22 of 32

exercise must be guided by the spirit of good governance enshrined in the

Sports Code. The Relaxation Clause serves as a mechanism to address

unforeseen difficulties, contingencies or operational challenges that may

arise in the implementation of the Sports Code. It enables MYAS to

exercise discretion only in limited, exceptional and justified cases.

Pertinently, the clause itself incorporates safeguards by requiring that

such exemptions be consistent with the overarching principles of the

Sports Code, thereby preventing misuse.

12. Indeed, the Relaxation Clause vests the power to grant exemptions in

the Minister-in-Charge of the MYAS, as highlighted and stressed by the

Petitioner. However, this does not imply unfettered discretion with the

Minister. The Clause itself stipulates that the reasons for granting

relaxation, by exercise of powers under the said Clause, has to be

recorded in writing, thereby making it mandatory that it must be a

reasoned decision. Furthermore, even though the power to relax

provisions is vested only with the Minister-in-Charge, it must be noted that

the Minister is only the highest Office-bearer of the MYAS who is to be

guided by the aid and advice of the ministry and its officers, thus ensuring

that such a power to relax is exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. In

Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India7 , the Supreme Court in the opening

lines observed that “the administrative law has of late seen vast increase

in discretionary powers. But then, the discretion conferred has to be

exercised to advance the purpose to subserve which the power exists. Even

the minister, if he/she be the repository of discretionary power, cannot

claim that either there is no discretion in the matter or unfettered

discretion”. Therefore, while the power is conferred on the Minister-in-

Charge, its exercise is not unregulated but rather, is bound by the

principles of accountability, transparency, and adherence to the objectives

of the Sports Code.

13. In light of the above, Relaxation Clause itself is neither arbitrary nor

unreasonable. Accordingly, the challenge to the validity of the said

Relaxation Clause is found to be unsustainable and is rejected. However,

the question of whether the exemptions granted to EFI under this Clause

meets the criteria of being “necessary and expedient” and is supported by

cogent reasons remains open to scrutiny.”

47. In light of the aforesaid, it is submitted that there was no legal

impediment in granting the exemption, as set out in the impugned order

dated 25.4.2025. Learned counsel for the UOI has emphasized that the

petitioner does not have any legally enforceable rights, inasmuch as granting

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 23 of 32

recognition is within the policy domain of the MYAS in terms of the Sports

Code itself.

48. Learned counsel for the applicant in CM APPL.31973/2025, apart

from emphasizing the factual assertions made in the said application, has

relied upon Clause 3.8 of Annexure-II of the Sports Code, which is in the

following terms:-

“3.8: The Federation should have held, unless exempted for technical

reasons, annual National Championships for specified age-group at the

Senior, Junior and Sub-Junior levels, consecutively for the three years

preceding the year in which recognition is sought. These competitions

should be organised through Inter-District Competitions in each

State/UT.”

49. It is submitted that in terms of the impugned Order dated 25.04.2025

of the Respondent No.1, no relaxation qua the said Clause-3.8 of Annexure-

II of the National Sports Code, 2011, has been extended to the respondent

no.2.

50. It is submitted that the exemptions granted to the respondent no.2

from the requirement of being in existence for at least 3 years are predicated

upon the alleged experience of the respondent no.2 in organizing two

national events. It is again emphasized that the said national events have

been conducted under the aegis of the applicant in CM APPL.31973/2025

and no credit for the same could have been claimed by the respondent no.2.

51. It is urged that grant of exemption is vitiated on account of non-

consideration of this vital aspect.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

52. Essentially, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the

grant of exemption to the respondent no.2 is neither legally nor factually

justified. It is further contended that grant of exemption is also precluded on

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 24 of 32

account of the orders dated 26.05.2022, 09.09.2022, 01.09.2023, 01.02.2024

in W.P.(C) 8691/2020, the judgment in Rahul Mehra v. Union of India,

2022 SCC OnLine Del 2438 and the judgment in K. P. Rao v. Union of

India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 779.

53. It is further contended by the petitioner that it is more suited /

qualified as compared to the respondent no.2, for the purpose of being

recognized as NSF for the sport of Pickleball in the country and therefore,

the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 granting recognition to the respondent

no.2 be quashed.

54. After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties and on

perusal of the material / case laws on record, this Court does not find any

merit in the aforesaid submissions.

55. It is rightly contended on behalf of the UOI/MYAS and the

respondent no.2 that the validity of Clause 16 of the Notification dated

01.02.2021 (whereby the power to grant relaxation in appropriate cases was

introduced) was not pronounced upon in judgment / order dated 26.05.2022

in W.P.(C) 8691/2020. No specific finding was rendered in the said

judgment in respect of the aforesaid relaxation clause introduced in 2021.

56. Likewise, in orders dated 09.09.2022, 01.09.2023 and 01.02.2024

passed in W.P.(C) 8691/2020, the Court rightly emphasized strict

compliance with the provisions of the Sports Code in the peculiar factual

conspectus. Again, the validity of the Notification dated 01.02.2021, which

introduced Clause 16, was not considered at all.

57. The same came to be specifically considered by a single Judge of this

Court in Rajasthan Equestrian Association v. Union of India & Ors.

(supra), wherein, this Court expressly rejected the challenge to the validity

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 25 of 32

of the aforesaid relaxation clause. While so rejecting, the Court noted that

the same is in the nature of a policy decision aimed at addressing practical

difficulties in the implementation of the Sports Code. It provides a

framework for granting exemptions in exceptional circumstances, where it is

deemed “necessary and expedient” for the promotion of sports or

sportspersons, or for resolving specific challenges faced by the NSFs. The

relaxation clause serves as a mechanism to address unforeseen difficulties,

contingencies, or operational challenges that may arise in the

implementation of the Sports Code.

58. The Court also noticed the dicta of the Supreme Court in Shiv Sagar

Tiwari v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 444, in terms of which the

discretion to grant relaxation is not unfettered but is bound by the principles

of accountability, transparency and adherence to the objectives of the Sports

Code.

59. Thus, in terms of the dicta laid down in Rajasthan Equestrian (supra)

no fault can be found with the policy relaxation provision/s as brought about

vide Notification dated 01.02.2021.

60. This Court has also extensively perused the provisions of the Sports

Code. It is evident therefrom that the Sports Code is a consolidated

compendium of executive instructions issued by the MYAS / UOI,

exercising executive powers under Article 73 of the Constitution of India.

The Sports Code consolidates: (i) the earlier prevalent NSF recognition

guidelines; (ii) government instructions on agent and tenure limits, electoral

processes, transparency norms, and dispute resolution; and (iii) sports

governance best practices drawn from international norms.

61. Given that the Code itself is policy driven and non-statutory in nature,

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 26 of 32

it cannot be construed to be immutable or rigid, or incapable of

incorporating exemptions. Further, by its very nature, the Sports Code

cannot be applied mechanically. It has to be interpreted and applied in a

manner that adheres to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality

and avoids absurd and counter-productive outcomes.

62. It is also a fact that a large number of executive instructions

incorporated in the Sports Code were framed in the context of legacy sports,

which have longstanding existence as also deep District and State level

penetration.

63. Inherently, nascent/ emerging sports such as pickleball cannot be

treated at par with legacy / established sports.

64. Unlike established sports, nascent sports such as pickleball: (i) have

been recently introduced; (ii) have limited geographical spread; and (iii) are

emerging and evolving.

65. To insist that the provisions of the Sports Code be applied

mechanically to all sports, including nascent sports, would be fundamentally

flawed and tantamount to treating un-equals as equals.

66. The most rigorous provisions in the Sports Code are those which

prescribe the requirements of District-level units

1

, the mandatory affiliation

1

3.10 At the National level, there will be only one recognised federation for each discipline of sport. Only

the duly recognised National Sports Federation would be entitled to financial grants as admissible. Only

one State/UT Association from each State/UT shall be admitted as a member of the Federation, provided it

has a minimum of 50% of the District level Associations affiliated to it. Any organisation of an all India

standing and connected with the Sport may be given the status as that of a State or that of a U.T. and

admitted as affiliated Member. Other categories of membership may also be given, but while each affiliated

State/UT Unit shall have a right to cast vote in the General Body Meetings, no other class of Member(s)

shall have any right to vote, in the Federation's meetings. While granting recognition/affiliation to a State

/UT Association, the National Federation should take into consideration the representative character of the

State/UT Association so as to ensure that only truly representative body of the game gets the

recognition/affiliation.

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 27 of 32

of all such units to the State Federation

2

, and prior existence of the

infrastructure

3

as a condition precedent to recognition. It would be

incongruous to insist that all provisions of the Sports Code be made ipso

facto applicable to the nascent and emerging sports. Inherently, certain

provisions of the Sports Code can only be organically generated.

67. As such, insisting on a pedantic and mechanical application of the

Sports Code, irrespective of the context, can create difficulties in certain

situations. Thus, the power of relaxation sought to be introduced has a very

useful role to play and serves a salutary purpose.

68. As noticed in Rajasthan Equestrian Association v. Union of India &

Ors. (supra), the exercise of such power is not unregulated, but is bound by

the principles of accountability, transparency, and adherence to the

objectives of the Sports Code.

69. Further, the power has to be exercised to avoid a situation where

volunteers and pioneers are discouraged from driving / introducing /

instituting / promoting new sports and / or to avoid a situation where Sports

Federation / Association resort to mere paper compliances. The Sports Code

should be applied in a manner so as to encourage compliance in substance,

not merely in form. Insistence on strict and immediate compliance with

2

3.4 At the time of applying for recognition, the Federation/Association should have affiliated Units in atleast 2/3rd of

total States/UTs of India.

3.19 The State level associations which are affiliated to the National Federation should in turn have a minimum number

of affiliated district-level associations (say 50% of the districts in the State).

3

8.4 For determining the eligibility for recognition of NSFs dealing with disciplines which are not included in

Olympics, Commonwealth Games or Asian Games, the Government has further notified additional conditions. Now

while considering the proposal of such disciplines following criteria will be taken into consideration:-

i. Popular Indigenous Games with All India spread

ii. Popular School, College and University Sports

iii. Likelihood of inclusion in major international games like Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, etc.

iv. Availability of required infrastructure

v. Affordability of the game

vi. Availability of coaches

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 28 of 32

structural and quantitative norms, particularly when applied to nascent

sports, can result in incongruity and frustrates, rather than advances, the

objective of developing the concerned sport.

70. No doubt, some of the core provisions of the Sports Code, which are

basic to good governance such as provisions related to holding of elections,

transparency of accounts, age or tenure restrictions, are necessarily

mandatory and uniformly binding on all associations. Yet, it cannot be lost

sight of the fact that there are many other provisions of the Sports Code

which are required to be applied in the context of a particular sport and with

due sensitivity to the developmental stage of the sport concerned.

71. It is also a fact that the grant of recognition under the Sports Code is

not permanent; it is inherently conditional and subject to annual renewal.

Review of recognition is automatically built into the architecture of the

Sports Code. Some relevant provisions of the Sports Code in this regard are

reproduced hereunder:

“1.6. In the recent past Government has taken various steps to further

improve the management of NSFs and sports in the country such as

notification of the Anti-Doping Code; introduction of annual recognition

of NSFs to ensure transparency and accountability of NSFs; enforcement

of age and tenure limit in respect of office bearers of NSFs, including the

Indian Olympic Association; bringing NSFs under the purview of Right

to Information Act; measures to ensure free, fair and transparent

elections by the NSFs; and measures to combat age fraud in sports; and

guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment of women in sports.

xxx xxx xxx

8.2 From the year December, 2009, a new system of annual recognition

was notified under which NSFs are required to submit detailed

documentation for grant of recognition, which would get automatically

renewed in the subsequent years subject to submission of prescribed

documents such as annual report, audited accounts, details of national

championships held, utilization certificate in respect of Government

grants. Copies of relevant circulars issued vide No.F.9- 69/2009-SP-I

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 29 of 32

dated 12.11.2009, 02.12.2009 & 29.11.2010 are placed at Annexure-XV.

Federations not availing of grants from the Government will receive

permanent recognition instead of annual recognition.

xxx xxx xxx

8.5 The Ministry reserves the right to suspend or withdraw the

recognition of NSF, in the event of serious irregularities being detected

in their internal functioning. The procedure and consequences of

suspension and de-recognition are indicated at Annexure III.

xxx xxx xxx

9. Conditions of eligibility

9.1 For NSFs to be eligible for financial assistance and sponsorship,

organizations must maintain their recognized status with the Department

and should obtain the Annual recognition on year-to-year basis.”

72. As noticed, the Sports Code not only contemplates annual renewal,

but also vests power in the MYAS / UOI to withdraw or suspend

recognition. As such, it is inherent in the scheme of the Sports Code that

neither the grant of recognition nor the grant of any relaxation, is

‘permanent’ or in the nature of a ‘one time event’. The system of granting

annual recognition ensures that any exemption that may have been granted

can be revisited, and recognition can be declined, suspended or withdrawn if

milestones are not met or if sufficient progress is not achieved by the

concerned federation.

73. For the above reasons, this Court finds nothing remiss in the

provisions of the Sports Code which enable the MYAS/UOI to grant

relaxation in certain situations. The same is consistent not only with the

spirit and purport of the Sports Code, but is also in line with the dicta laid

down in Rajasthan Equestrian Association v. Union of India & Ors.

(supra). On the contrary, the adoption of a “one size fits all” approach

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 30 of 32

would be an anathema to the objective and purport of the Sports Code,

particularly in the context of nascent and emerging sports.

74. Insofar as the exemptions granted to the respondent no.2 are

concerned, it has been brought out that such exemptions were granted to the

respondent no.2 from the condition(s) of :

a) prior existence of 3 years at the time of applying for recognition as an

NSF; (Clause 3.3)

b) 50% District units affiliated with the State/UT units. (Clause 3.10).

75. Grant of the aforesaid exemption/s was a policy decision of the

respondent no.1/Ministry, after due consideration of the emerging and

nascent nature of the sport as well as the need and desire for promoting and

developing the sport of pickleball in the country.

76. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, especially considering

that the MYAS is presumed to have domain expertise in these matters.

77. As regards the circumstances which impelled the MYAS/UOI to grant

recognition to the respondent no.2, it has been brought out in the counter-

affidavit filed on behalf of the UOI/MYAS that the same was based on the

following considerations:

i. that the respondent no.2 has 26 affiliated States / UT units, thereby

meeting the requirement of representation in at least 2/3rd of the

States / UTs of India, as enshrined in Clause 3.4 of Annexure II of the

Sports Code;

ii. there is presently no IOC recognized international federation and in

absence thereof, the affiliation of the respondent no.2 with the Global

Pickleball Federation (GPF) was found to have a wider international

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 31 of 32

footprint than that of the petitioner’s affiliating body, which was

considered a significant factor in favour of the respondent no.2, given

the need for effective international representation;

iii. The compliance status of the respondent no.2 was assessed, as also its

membership strength;

iv. It was noticed that the constitution of the respondent no.2 was broadly

aligned with the key provisions of the Sports Code, whereas the

constitution of the petitioner lacks adherence to the several mandatory

provisions.

78. It is not within the province of this Court to second guess / sit in

appeal over the comparative merits / de-merits of the respondent no.2 vis-à-

vis the petitioner association or any other association functioning in the sport

of pickleball in the country.

79. Necessarily, the requisite exercise has to be conducted by the MYAS.

Given the justification offered by the MYAS/UOI in the counter-affidavit, it

cannot be said that grant of the recognition to the respondent no.2 is ex-facie

arbitrary or suffers from manifest unreasonableness, warranting interference

in these proceedings.

80. Also, as noted, given the scheme of the Sports Code, the grant of

recognition is not something that is “permanent”. The same is inherently

subject to renewal upon considerations of all relevant factors. It would be

well within the domain of the UOI/MYAS to reconsider the matter (based

on any representation that may be made by the petitioner or any other body),

and / or re-appraise the comparative strengths / suitability of the respondent

no.2 and the petitioner and to take a suitable decision in the future. At this

stage, however, in the totality of the circumstances, particularly considering

W.P.(C) 5736/2025 Page 32 of 32

the nascent nature of the sport, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

decision taken by the UOI/MYAS.

81. Likewise, as regards the objections raised by the applicant in CM

APPL.31973/2025 seeking to assail the credential and antecedents of the

respondent no.2, this Court is unable to embark upon an elaborate fact-

finding inquiry with regard thereto. Suffice it to say, that it would be open to

the said applicant to make a representation to the UOI/MYAS, which shall

be duly considered at the time of annual renewal of the recognition granted

vide order dated 25.04.2025.

82. In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present petition;

the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications also stand

disposed of.

SACHIN DATTA, J

FEBRUARY 2, 2026/r, sv