No money will go henceforth to any entity which does not comply
In a country where sport carries both national pride and public money, India's Delhi High Court has drawn a firm line: federations that govern athletes but refuse to govern themselves by the law will no longer receive the state's financial support. The ruling, issued by Justices Waziri and Mahajan in response to a long-running petition, reflects a deeper tension between institutional convenience and the rule of law — a tension the court resolved by placing principle above precedent. With dozens of federations still out of compliance and a one-month deadline now in motion, the order asks a quiet but consequential question: who watches over those who watch over sport?
- Decades of tolerated non-compliance came to a head when the Delhi High Court declared that not a single rupee of public funding would flow to federations ignoring India's Sports Code.
- The scale of the problem is significant — only 15 of India's national sports federations fully comply, while 22 require either constitutional amendments or major structural overhauls.
- The petitioner alleges the violations run deeper still, with at least 24 federations placing unqualified individuals in leadership roles, sidelining the very athletes the code is meant to protect.
- To shield competitors from the fallout, the court carved out a safeguard: direct athlete support through the Sports Authority of India will continue and may even grow during the compliance window.
- Federations that remain out of line when the one-month deadline expires face suspension notices, loss of access to public stadiums and training facilities, and a July court date that will determine what comes next.
On a Friday in early June, a Delhi High Court bench delivered an unambiguous verdict to India's national sports federations: comply with the Sports Code or lose all public funding. Justices Najmi Waziri and Vikas Mahajan, hearing a petition brought by senior advocate Rahul Mehra, declared that no money would henceforth reach any federation operating outside the law. "What is suffering," the bench said plainly, "is the rule of law."
The court gave the Centre one month to bring every federation into compliance. To protect athletes from the disruption, direct support through the Sports Authority of India would continue — and potentially increase — during that period. Any federation still non-compliant at the deadline would face suspension.
The government's own accounting revealed the depth of the problem. While fifteen federations were already compliant and six held formal exemptions, five needed to amend their constitutions and seventeen required major structural changes. Mehra pushed further, arguing that at least twenty-four federations had installed leadership that failed to meet the code's requirement that a quarter of any federation's management be composed of athletes of outstanding merit.
The court's patience had long since worn thin. The judges called the non-compliance "unsporting" and dismissed the suggestion that cutting funding would harm athletes — the real harm, they argued, was to the principle that public institutions must follow the rules that govern them. This was not the court's first warning; it had flagged the issue as far back as November 2021 and had already signaled in late May that no further leniency would be extended.
The order was comprehensive: no public funds, no access to government stadiums or training facilities, no exceptions beyond direct athlete support. With a July hearing already scheduled, the message to India's sporting establishment was clear — governance is not optional, and the law applies to everyone.
A Delhi High Court bench issued a stark ultimatum on Friday: national sports federations that refuse to comply with India's sports administration law will receive no public money, effective immediately. The two-judge panel, led by Justices Najmi Waziri and Vikas Mahajan, made the declaration while hearing a petition from senior advocate Rahul Mehra, who had pushed the court to enforce the Sports Code across all federations. The judges were blunt about what was at stake. "No money will go henceforth to any entity which does not comply with the Sports Code," they said from the bench. "What is suffering is the rule of law."
The court gave the Centre one month to bring every federation into line. During that interim period, direct support to athletes through the Sports Authority of India would continue and potentially expand—a safeguard meant to ensure that individual competitors did not suffer while their federations scrambled to meet legal requirements. Any federation still out of compliance when that month elapsed would face suspension notices.
The picture of non-compliance was murkier than the government had suggested. According to the Joint Secretary of the Sports Ministry, who appeared before the court, fifteen national sports federations were already operating within the code's requirements, and six had received formal exemptions. But the numbers told a different story on the other side: five federations needed to amend their constitutions to qualify, and seventeen required substantial structural changes. The petitioner, however, disputed even these figures, arguing that at least twenty-four federations had placed individuals in management positions who did not meet the code's standards—specifically, that a quarter of any federation's leadership must consist of prominent athletes of outstanding merit. That mandate, Mehra contended, was being systematically ignored.
The court's frustration was evident. The judges remarked that the non-compliance amounted to poor sportsmanship itself. "It is unsporting," they observed. "There are too many red cards coming up." They rejected the government's implicit argument that athletes would suffer if funding were cut off. The real suffering, the bench suggested, was to the rule of law itself—the principle that public institutions must follow the rules that govern them, regardless of inconvenience.
This was not the court's first intervention. In November 2021, the Centre had reported recognizing fifty-nine national sports federations. The court had already noted then that there could be no justification for spending public money on entities that did not meet legal standards. When non-compliance persisted, the judges escalated, demanding that a senior official appear in person to explain the delays. On May 26, just days before this ruling, the court had already signaled its impatience, warning that no further exemptions or leniency would be granted to federations that refused to align themselves with the code.
The order was sweeping in its reach. No federation could access government-owned stadiums, training facilities, or other public sports infrastructure unless it complied. No public funds could flow to it. The only exception was direct athlete support, which would be channeled through the Sports Authority of India rather than through the federations themselves. The court scheduled the next hearing for July, leaving the Centre and the federations with a clear deadline and a clear consequence. The message was unmistakable: governance matters, and the law applies to everyone.
Citas Notables
What is suffering is the rule of law. No money will go henceforth to any entity which does not comply with the Sports Code.— Delhi High Court Justices Najmi Waziri and Vikas Mahajan
It is unsporting. There are too many red cards coming up.— The bench, commenting on federation non-compliance
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the court feel it needed to cut off money rather than just ordering compliance?
Because the federations had been ignoring previous orders. The court had already told them to comply months earlier. When nothing changed, the judges realized that gentle pressure wasn't working—they needed to make non-compliance actually costly.
But doesn't cutting funding hurt the athletes themselves?
That's what the government kept saying. The court acknowledged it, which is why they carved out an exception: money still flows directly to athletes through the Sports Authority of India. The federations lose access, not the competitors.
What exactly are these federations doing wrong?
Mostly governance issues. They're putting people in leadership positions who shouldn't be there under the rules—people without the required athletic credentials. Some haven't even updated their constitutions to match the legal requirements. It's bureaucratic non-compliance, but it matters because it affects how public money gets spent.
How many federations are we talking about here?
Out of fifty-nine recognized federations, only fifteen are fully compliant. Six have exemptions. The rest—roughly forty—need to make changes. Some need minor constitution tweaks, others need major structural overhauls.
What happens if they don't comply in the next month?
Suspension. They get put on notice and lose access to everything—funding, facilities, government support. The court made it clear this isn't negotiable anymore.
Does this actually force change, or do federations just find workarounds?
That's the real test. The court is betting that cutting off money will finally make compliance urgent. We'll know in July when they hear the case again.