A single group has controlled the association for decades
In the courts of Jammu and Kashmir, a public interest petition has drawn judicial attention to what appears to be decades of unchecked governance within a regional badminton association — a story not merely of sports administration, but of how silence from those entrusted with oversight can allow institutional decay to calcify into habit. The High Court's Division Bench, confronting violations of the Sports Code of India ranging from flawed elections to officials well past mandated age limits, has now demanded a formal accounting from the Sports Council, whose inaction across three years transformed a procedural failure into a constitutional concern. The case asks a question older than any rulebook: who watches the watchmen?
- A 2022 election held without ballot boxes, age verification, or political affiliation checks exposed the Badminton Association's governance as a structure built on ignored rules rather than legitimate process.
- The Sports Council received a damning observer's report in April 2022 and chose silence — a silence that held for over three years while the association's leadership continued unchallenged.
- A public interest petition filed in September 2025 finally broke the stillness, forcing two senior officials over 70 to resign under Sports Code age-limit provisions, though several others in violation remain in post.
- The court discovered the problem runs deeper still — the sitting chairman is 80, the vice-chairman exceeds the age threshold, and newly appointed officials hold government positions without the required permissions.
- The High Court has now framed five pointed questions and ordered the Sports Council to file a comprehensive affidavit by April 21, 2026 — the first formal regulatory response to allegations of systematic neglect.
A division bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court opened a recent hearing with visible frustration, as Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal confronted what the record diplomatically calls displeasure — a measured term for genuine concern over how thoroughly the Sports Code of India had been disregarded by those meant to uphold it.
The story begins with an election on March 6, 2022. A Divisional Sports Officer assigned to observe the proceedings submitted a report six weeks later cataloguing disqualifying failures: no ballot box, no age records, no verification of candidates' affiliations with other associations, absent political certification, and newly elected officials who were active political party members — a status that should have barred them entirely.
The Sports Council received that report in April 2022 and did nothing. No investigation, no sanctions, no enforcement. The silence persisted for more than three years until a petition filed by Bakshtawar Singh and others in September 2025 challenged the legitimacy of the association's entire leadership. Only then did two senior officials — president Chander Prakash Sharma, a sitting legislator over 70, and general secretary B.S. Jamwal, also over 70 — resign citing the Sports Code's age limits.
Yet the court found the violations did not end with those resignations. The association's chairman, Dr. O.D. Sharma, is 80 and still in office. The vice-chairman has also exceeded the 70-year threshold. The newly appointed general secretary is a government employee without the required official permission to hold such a role, as is the joint secretary — an assistant general manager at the Reserve Bank of India in Guwahati, elected in breach of the same prohibition.
Petitioner's advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed argued that a single group had held the association in its grip for decades, sheltered by the Sports Council's studied inaction. The bench has now framed five specific questions — chief among them whether the Sports Council failed its fundamental regulatory duty — and directed its secretary to file a comprehensive affidavit before the next hearing on April 21, 2026. That document, when it arrives, will be the first formal response from the oversight body to allegations it has never before been compelled to answer.
A division bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir opened its hearing on a public interest lawsuit with visible frustration. The case, brought by Bakhtawar Singh and others against the territory and its institutions, centered on a single organization: the Badminton Association of Jammu and Kashmir. What the court found was a pattern of governance failures so systematic that Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal felt compelled to express what the record describes as displeasure—a measured word for what appeared to be genuine concern about how thoroughly the Sports Code of India, a set of mandatory rules passed by Parliament, had been ignored.
The violations began with an election held on March 6, 2022. A Divisional Sports Officer assigned to observe the proceedings submitted a report six weeks later documenting what should have been disqualifying problems. There was no ballot box. The election organizers had kept no records of the ages of candidates or their previous terms in office. No one had verified that elected officials were not members of other sports associations. Political affiliation certificates—required by the code—were absent. And several of the newly elected office bearers were found to be active members of political parties, a status that should have barred them from holding positions in a sports organization.
What happened next was silence. The Sports Council of Jammu and Kashmir received the observer's report in April 2022 and took no action. No investigation. No sanctions. No enforcement of the rules that governed the association. The silence held for more than three years, until a petition was filed in September 2025 challenging the legitimacy of the entire leadership structure. Only then did two senior officials—Chander Prakash Sharma, the association's president, who is over 70 years old and serves as a state legislator and former cabinet minister, and B.S. Jamwal, the general secretary, also over 70—resign in November 2025, citing age limits in the Sports Code.
But the court found that the problem extended beyond those two departures. The association's chairman, Dr. O.D. Sharma, is 80 years old and still holding office. The vice-chairman, Dr. Satish Chander, has also passed the age threshold of 70 but remained in his position. The newly appointed general secretary, Raju Sharma, is a government employee—a status that, under the Sports Code and related regulations, requires explicit government permission to hold any office in a sports association. He apparently did not have it. The joint secretary, Rahul Sharma, who works as an assistant general manager at the Reserve Bank of India in Guwahati, was elected in violation of the same rule barring government employees from such roles.
The petitioner's advocate, Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed, argued that a single group had controlled the Badminton Association for decades, using the Sports Council's inaction as cover. The court, after hearing arguments from all sides, framed five specific questions it would need to answer, including whether the Sports Council had failed in its basic duty to enforce the Sports Code. The bench directed the secretary of the Sports Council to file a comprehensive affidavit addressing these questions before the next hearing, scheduled for April 21, 2026. The Sports Council's counsel acknowledged the court's concerns and committed to compliance, but the affidavit—due nearly a year after the observer's initial report—will be the first formal response from the regulatory body to allegations of systematic neglect.
Citações Notáveis
The instant PIL is a classic example of violation of the mandatory provisions of the Sports Code, 2011— Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed, representing petitioners
The Sports Council is committed to implement the Sports Code, 2011 and the pleas raised in the court today will be addressed by filing a comprehensive affidavit— Advocate Anshuja Tak, representing J&K Sports Council
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did it take three years for anyone to challenge what the observer found in 2022?
The observer's report was filed with the Sports Council, which had the authority and obligation to act on it. Instead, they did nothing. Without the public interest petition filed in 2025, there would have been no pressure, no court hearing, no accountability.
So the two officials who resigned—were they forced out, or did they jump before they were pushed?
They resigned after the petition was filed, citing age limits. The court's language suggests they understood what was coming. But the real problem is that the age limits existed all along. They should never have been in those positions to begin with.
What about the government employees holding office? Why is that such a violation?
The Sports Code exists to keep sports organizations independent from political interference. A government employee holding office in a sports body creates an obvious conflict. The rules are explicit: you need permission first. These officials didn't have it.
Did the Sports Council defend itself?
Their counsel said they're committed to the Sports Code and will file a comprehensive affidavit. But the court's tone suggests that commitment is being tested. Three years of silence is hard to explain away.
What happens if the affidavit doesn't satisfy the court?
The bench has framed five specific questions, including whether the Sports Council failed its regulatory duty. If the affidavit doesn't adequately address those, the court will likely find violations and order corrective action—possibly removal of current office bearers, new elections, or both.