Delhi High Court
Yoga Federation Of India, Through Its … vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary & … on 9 July, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
+ W.P.(C) 20/2021, CM APPL.60/2021 and CRM.APPL.46202/2022
Between:
YOGA FEDERATION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS ZONAL
SECRETARY YASH PARASHAR , 7th, SHATABDI PURAM,
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201001.
.....PETITIONER
(Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Devvrat
Sharma, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain and Mr.Hanif Chimthanwala.,
Advocates.)
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY , MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS
AND SPORTS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, C-WING, DR. RAJENDRA
PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110001
2. MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA, YOGA &
NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA, AND HOMEOPATHY
(AYUSH)
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY GPO COMPLEX, AYUSH
BHAWAN, B BLOCK, INA, NEW DELHI, DELHI -110023
3. NATIONAL YOGASANA SPORTS FEDERATION
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, 68, ASHOKA ROAD, NEAR
GOLE DAK KHANA, NEW DELHI- 110001.
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
1
(Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardawaj, CGSC with Mr. Udit
Dedhiya, SPC with Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Mr. Preyansh Gupta, Mr.
Kushagra Kumar, Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advocates for Respondent
No.1.
Mr. Vishnu Sharma and Ms.Vanshika Sharma, Advocates.
Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr, AkshitPardhan, Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Ms.
Muskan Goyal, Mr. Anish Singh, Ms. Vanshika Sharma Advs. for
Respondent No.3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Reserved on: 21.05.2026
Pronounced on: 09.07.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
INDEX
I. FACTUAL MATRIX ………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ……………………………………………………………… 15
A. PETITIONER …………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
B. RESPONDET NO.1 (MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS) ………… 18
C. RESPONDENT NO. 3 (YOGASANA BHARAT)…………………………………………… 21
III. ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
A. ILLEGALITY OF ORIGINAL RECOGNITION ……………………………………………. 22
B. APPLICABILITY OF RELAXATION CLAUSE …………………………………………… 34
C. VALIDITY OF THE SPEAKING ORDER…………………………………………………….. 40
D. CAN THE ANNUAL RENEWAL LETTERS SURVIVE THE FALL OF PARENT
RECOGNITION …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
IV. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………… 49
V. ORDER ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 50
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
2
“The practice of sport is a human right. Every Individual must have access
to the practice of sport, without discrimination of any kind.”1
Yoga is among the oldest continuously practiced disciplines in human
civilisation. The word first appears in the Rig Veda, the oldest of the four
Vedas, and among the oldest surviving sacred texts in the world, derived
from the Sanskrit root yuj, meaning to yoke or to unite. In its earliest Vedic
usage, the term described the harnessing of a draft animal to a war chariot:
an image of disciplined forces brought into purposeful alignment. Over three
millennia, that single word travelled from the battlefield to the ashram, from
the yoking of horses to the stilling of the mind. A journey that is not a
coincidence of etymology but the record of a civilisation’s deepest and most
sustained inquiry into the nature of the human condition.
2. From the Rig Veda, the presence of yoga deepens and diversifies
across the entire sweep of ancient Indian literature. The Atharva Veda, gave
emphasis to the control of breath as a form of inner discipline. The
Brahmanas, a body of Sanskrit prose texts attached to the four Vedas began
the interiorisation of ritual that would prove foundational to later yoga; the
shift from external ceremony toward internal transformation.
3. The Upanishads, over two hundred texts revolutionised Indian
spiritual thought by centring the inquiry upon self-knowledge,
consciousness, and liberation. The Katha Upanishad, among the earliest,
employs the chariot metaphor that yoga teachers would invoke for centuries;
the intellect as charioteer, the body as the chariot, the senses as horses, an
1
Olympic Charter, Fundamental Principles of Olympism, Principle 4.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
3
image for the practitioner’s effort to bring the unruly forces of human
experience under disciplined governance.
4. The Mahabharata, the great epic attributed to the sage Vyasa contains
approximately nine hundred references to yoga across its narrative and
philosophical expanse. Embedded within its sixth book, the Bhishma Parva,
at chapters twentythree through forty, is the Bhagavad Gita, which describes
three great paths of human striving: karma yoga, the yoga of selfless action
performed without attachment to its fruits; jnana yoga, the yoga of
knowledge and wisdom; and bhakti yoga, the yoga of loving devotion. In
each of these paths, yoga is not a physical regimen. It is the disciplined
orientation of the entire human personality, thought, will, feeling, and action
toward a transcendent end.
5. The competitive discipline of Yogasana, as it is practised and
administered today, awards points on the basis of balance, control,
flexibility, and endurance demonstrated in standardised postures. The
transformation from Patanjali’s meditative instruction, sthirasukham,
steadiness and ease, to the competitive arena is long and indirect. But the
lineage is unbroken, and the civilisational root is the same. The State’s
decision to regulate and institutionalise this discipline is an exercise of
power and authority over a domain that is simultaneously ancient in its
origins and contemporary in its institutional expression.
6. Patanjali, composing his Yoga Sutras opened with a deceptively
simple announcement, atha yoga anushasanam i.e., now begins the
discipline of yoga. The word he chose, anushasanam, is not merely
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
4
instruction or teaching. It is governance: the governance of the self, the
stilling of the mind’s ceaseless fluctuations, the imposition of disciplined
order upon the chaos of human experience.
7. Patanjali’s word for the exposition of yoga, anushasanam carries
within it the idea of governance: the disciplined ordering of the self toward a
higher purpose. More than 2000 years after Patanjali composed his Sutras,
the present petition invites this Court to examine a governance of a different
kind, the governance of Yogasana as a competitive sport by the institutions
the State has created for that purpose, and whether those institutions, in
exercising the powers entrusted to them, followed the rules they themselves
prescribed.
8. It is in this context, of a civilisational practice acquiring the legal
infrastructure of a modern competitive sport, that this Court is called upon to
examine whether the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (hereinafter
“Sports Ministry”), in granting recognition to the National Yogasana
Sports Federation as the National Sports Federation for the sport of
Yogasana vide letter dated 27.11.2020, acted in accordance with the very
framework it had prescribed for that purpose.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX
9. The Yoga Federation of India, the petitioner, claims to have been
established in 1974 and has since administered the competitive practice of
yoga in India. Over nearly five decades, the petitioner claims to have built
an institutional presence that spans thirty-four State and Union Territory
affiliations, forty-four consecutive National Championships conducted at
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
5
Senior, Junior, and Sub-Junior levels for both men and women, affiliation
with the International Yoga Sports Federation since 1989 and with the Asian
Yoga Federation since 2010, six World Championship victories, and the
hosting of four World Championships on Indian soil.
10. In December 2019, the petitioner submitted a formal application to
the Respondent No. 1- Sports Ministry for recognition as the National Sports
Federation for the sport of yoga under the Sports Code. Over the following
years, the Sports Ministry engaged with the petitioner through repeated
correspondence, acknowledging the application and, as recently as July
2020, expressly assuring the petitioner vide letter dated 24.07.2020 that its
application remained under active consideration. Four months after that
assurance, the application remained undecided. Contents of the letter dated
24.07.2020 are reproduced as under:-
“I am directed to refer your representation No. YFI/16689 dated 16.12.2019
on the subject cited above and to intimate that your request has been noted
for suitable action and future references as please.”
11. In November 2019, the International Yogasana Sports Federation was
established. Less than nine months later, on 21.08.2020, the National
Yogasana Sports Federation now Yogansana Bharat/Respondent No. 3 was
constituted and registered on the recommendation of the International
federation. Two months after its registration, Yogasana Bharat vide letter
dated 21.10.2020 applied for recognition as the National Sports Federation
(hereinafter “NSF”) for the sport of Yogasana.
12. Eight days after Yogasana Bharat applied to be recognised as NSF,
The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy Unani, Siddha, Sowa
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
6
Rigpa and Homeopathy (hereinafter “AYUSH”)/ Respondent No. 2
addressed an Official Letter dated 29.10.2020 to the Sports Ministry
recommending that Yogasana Bharat be recognised as NSF. The letter dated
29.10.2020 is reproduced as under:-
” The National Board for Promotion and Development of Yoga and
Naturopathy (NDPDYN) in its 5th meeting held on 11.07.2019 had
recommended to include Yogasana as Sports to enhance its accessibility in
the area of sports. Accordingly, Ministry of AYUSH and Ministry of Youth
Affairs and Sports have been closely working to establish Yogasana as a
competitive sport. Various meetings and deliberations in this regard have
been held between these two Ministries.
2. Further, I am happy to inform that in pursuance of your Ministry‟s
advice to build necessary infrastructure for declaration of Yogasana as one
of the Sports discipline, Ministry of AYUSH has been actively undertaken
initiatives for propagation of Yoga in multifaceted way across the globe.
3. An International Yogasana Sports Federation (IYSF) under
Presidentship of Yogrishi Swami Ramdev Ji has been established on
08.11.2019. The Federation has since been working on formulation of Rules
& Regulations, SOPs to facilitate the organisation of Yogasana
competitions. Further, on the recommendation of IYSF, a National
Yogasana Sports Federation (NYSF) under the Presidentship of Dr. I.V.
Basavaraddi, was also constituted and registered on 21.08.2020 to look
after the work at national level of Yogasana as a sport. More initiatives are
on in bringing together other stake-holders at districts level to expedite this
initiative.
It is pertinent to note that Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has
been playing a crucial role to reach out to the youth, and promote sports in
India, with its flagship programme, like the National Youth Policy,
RashtriyaYuvaSashakti Karan Karyakram, National Programme for Youth
and Adolescent Development, National Young Leaders Programme, Khelo
India, and Fit India Movement. I firmly believe that induction of Yogasana
as a Sport will play an important role not only in the promotion of Yoga, but
also achieving the mission of Fit India Movement. Yogasana as a Sport
discipline will add glory to the Indian sports traditions globally.
4. The efforts of IYSF and NYSF in bringing out associated chapters
in coordination with States and other Federations are appreciable. This
Ministry recommends that the National Yogasana Sports Federation be
recognized by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports so that YogasanaSignature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
7
as a competitive sport can develop and take roots, not just in India but
across the world.
[Emphasis Supplied]
13. Within a period of one month, Sports Ministry vide letter dated
27.11.2020 granted Yogasana Bharat the status of NSF (hereinafter
“recognition letter”). Conversely, the petitioner’s application pending for
years was not referred to, considered, or mentioned anywhere in the
recognition letter. No comparative assessment or justification for keeping
petitioner’s application out of its sight was recorded. The recognition letter
sets out the conditions subject to which recognition was granted and is
reproduced as under: –
“Subject- Grant of Government recognition to National Yogasana Sports
Federation as the National Sport Federation for promotion and
development of Yogasana as a competitive sport in India”
Sir, Reference is invited to National Yogasana Sports Federation‟s letter
No. NYSF/01/2020-21/GA dated 21.10.2020 requesting therein for
recognition of National Yogasana Sports Federation (NYSF) for promotion
and development of Yogasana as a competitive sport in India.
2. The matter for granting recognition to a national level sports body for the
sport of Yogasana has been deliberated at length taking into account all the
relevant factors including developing Yogasana as a competitive sport. On
recommendation of the Ministry of AYUSH, it has been decided to recognize
National Yogasana Sports Federation as a National Sports Federation with
immediate effect for promotion and development of Yogasana as a
competitive sport in the country. National Yogasana Sports Federation has
affiliation of International Yogasana Sports Federation.
3. The recognition of Government to National Yogasana Sports Federation
is subject to continued observance of the following terms and conditions: –
a) The office bearers of the Federation shall invariable be appointed by
election as per the Model Election Guidelines issues by the Ministry. The
various instructions issues by the Ministry from time to time, including the
age and tenure criteria, for holding the elective offices of the Federation
shall be scrupulously followed.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
8
b) The federation shall give, at least two months advance notice to the
Government for any change in its Constitution. The copy of the existing
Constitution and the proposed changes should invariably be sent along with
the notice.
c) The Federation 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 Federation must be audited, by a Charted
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 Federation must scrupulously abide by the guidelines of the Govt.
issued from the time, for the conduct of national Championship, drawing of
advance calendar for holding National Championships, players grievance
system in the management of the federations, etc.
f) The Federation shall have corresponding State/UT bodies affiliated to it
in all the Sate/UTs within two years from the date of this recognition.
[Emphasis supplied]
g) The Federation should also abide by the directions of the Government
issued, if any, in the interest of promotion of Yogasana sport among its
players or Public in general.
h) The recognition can be reviewed by the Govt., in case Memorandum of
Association (MoA) of the Federation or its practices come into conflict with
the Govt. Guidelines as amended from time to time.
i) The Ministry‟s Guidelines for selection procedure shall be followed by
National Yogsana Sports Federation. The tournaments shall be held for
Men & Women at all levels i.e., National, State, District level for Senior,
Junior and Sub-Junior categories.
j) The Federation 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 Federation shall ensure strict compliance of the Government
guidelines to prevent unethical practices in sports such as age fraud,
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
9
prevention of sexual harassment of women in sports, Anti-doping, issuance
of identity cases to sportspersons etc.
4. National Yogasana Sports Federation is also required to make
categorical affirmation of the provisions of the Sports Codeinits
Constitution within 6 months so as to bring the same in line with the
Sports Code.
[Emphasis Supplied]
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 Union Govt. are not complied with as required;
d) in the opinion of the Union Govt., the Federation is not functional
properly;
e) the recognition has been obtained by submitting false information or by
misrepresentation of fact;
f) the concerned international Federation cancels affiliation or derecognizes
or dissatisfies the Federation.
6. A copy of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011,
currently in force is available on the website of this Ministry i.e.,
https://vas.nic.in
7. The reasons for financial assistance and clearance of proposals must be
submitted in the prescribed manner. Assistance may be provided to the
Federation subject to the availability of funds, submission of the relevant
documents, fulfilment of the terms and conditions/guidelines etc. as may be
prescribed from time to time.
14. The conditions attached to the Recognition Letter are themselves a
revelation that Yogasana Bharat’s constitution and functioning thereupon
does not align with the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011
(hereinafter “Sports Code”) on the date of recognition and was granted time
to fulfil the obligations that the Sports Code requires to be fulfilled before
NSF recognition is granted i.e., adopting a process de hors the established
principles enshrined under the sports code.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
10
15. This Court vide order dated 22.04.2021, directed the Sports Ministry
to hear both the petitioner and Yogasana Bharat and to pass appropriate
orders in accordance with the Sports Code. The direction specifically
included the requirement that the Sports Ministry should also consider
whether Yogasana Bharat’s recognition be continued or not. Vide further
order dated 05.10.2021, this Court directed the Sports Ministry to pass a
detailed speaking order. Excerpts of Order dated 22.04.2021 and 05.10.2021
is reproduced respectively as under: –
Order dated 22.04.2021
“4. The Petitioner has made representations to Respondent No. 1 – Ministry
of Youth Affairs and Sports which have been placed on record. Considering
that the appropriate authority for giving recognition to a body as a
„national sports federation‟, as per Paragraph 6.1(a) read with Paragraph
8.3 of the Sports Code, 2011, is the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, it
is directed that representation of the Petitioner be considered and decided
by the appropriate authority in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
within a period of 45 days of this order. The said authority shall also hear
both the parties i.e., the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 and pass an
appropriate order in accordance with the Sports Code, 2011. Copy of the
said order be placed on record before the next date of hearing. The question
as to whether the recognition as a „national sports federation‟ which has
already been granted to Respondent No. 3 be continued or not, will be
considered in the said order.
5.The Ministry is permitted to hear any other stakeholders it deems
appropriate. Further, the decision in respect of the recognition of
Respondent No. 3 shall be taken afresh without being influenced by the
recognition already granted”.
[Emphasis Supplied]
Order dated 05.10.2021
“2. Even though the respondent no.1 failed to pass any order within the
period of 45 days as directed by this Court, it has finally, on
10.09.2021,passed an order rejecting the petitioner‟s representations, which
has been placed on record along with an affidavit dated 04.10.2021. A
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
11
perusal of the said order, whereby the petitioner‟s representations have
been rejected, shows that the respondent no.1 has acted in a most
mechanical manner and has not even dealt with any submissions made by
the petitioner in its representations. When confronted with this situation,
Mr.Soni, who appears on behalf of respondent no.1, concedes that the order
does not even refer to any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in its
‟representations and therefore, prays that the respondent no.1 be granted
an opportunity to pass a fresh order specifically dealing with the
submissions made by the petitioner in its‟ representations. As prayed for
,the respondent no.1 is granted two weeks‟ time to pass a fresh order. It is
expected that the fresh order will deal with all the submissions made by the
petitioner, failing which, this Court will be constrained to take up thematter
for adjudication on the next date.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
16. The writ petition, as originally filed, challenged only the recognition
letter dated 27.11.2020. Upon the speaking order dated 19.10.2021 coming
to be passed, the petitioner sought leave of this Court, by way of
amendment, to bring that order within the scope of challenge, on the ground
that it was not an independent or self-standing decision but was directly
traceable to, and infected by, the very illegality alleged against the
recognition of 27.11.2020. This Court allowed the amendment. It is pursuant
to this amendment that the speaking order dated 19.10.2021 came to be
independently impugned before this Court.
17. Between the conclusion of hearing and passing of the speaking order,
Right to Information (“RTI”) Application was preferred by Yogasana
Bharat pertaining to the petitioner’s registration status under the Haryana
Registration Act, 2005. The RTI response so received was submitted by
Yogasana Bharat through Ministry of AYUSH to the Sports Ministry on
14.10.2021, five days before the speaking order came to be passed. This
response was never disclosed or shared with the petitioner, who was
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
12
thereupon afforded no opportunity to respond to it. The speaking order dated
19.10.2021 nonetheless relied upon this very document to record the specific
finding that “the petitioner had not fulfilled the requirements under the
Haryana Registration Act, 2005.” This reliance stands confirmed by the
Sports Ministry’s own Additional Affidavit dated 05.05.2026.
18. The speaking order dated 19.10.2021 rejected the petitioner’s claim to
recognition on the grounds, inter alia, that its claimed international
affiliations were found to be inaccurate upon website verification, and that
its legal status was under doubt on account of two societies registered under
the same name, one in Haryana and one in Ranchi, Jharkhand. The order
upheld the recognition of Yogasana Bharat. It recorded no examination of
whether Yogasana Bharat had satisfied the mandatory eligibility criteria of
the Sports Code at the time when recognition was granted, i.e., on
27.11.2020. The direction of this Court dated 22.04.2021 to
consider “whether R3‟s recognition be continued or not” received no
substantive response in the speaking order.
19. Sports Ministry vide letter dated 01.02.2021 introduced Clause 16 into
the Sports Code. That clause, styled as the Relaxation Clause, conferred
upon the Government the power to relax the provisions of the Sports Code
as a special exemption, subject to two mandatory conditions: that the
reasons for such relaxation be recorded in writing, and that the power vest
personally with the Minister-in-charge of the Sports Ministry. Clause 16
reads as under:-
“Government shall have the power to relax any of the provisions of the
National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 and other instructionsSignature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
13
issued with regard to recognition of National Sports Federations
(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 provision will vest with Minister In-charge of the Ministry of Youth
Affairs & Sports.”
20. This clause came into existence after the recognition of Yogasana
Bharat had already been granted. It was therefore not available to the Sports
Ministry on 27.11.2020, date on which Yogasana Bharat was declared NSF
for Sports of Yogasana. Thereafter, annual renewal letters were issued to
Yogasana Bharat for the years 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025, letters that were
issued in the period during which the Relaxation Clause was in existence
and available for invocation. Yet not one of these renewal letters makes any
reference to the Relaxation Clause, records any reasons for relaxing a
mandatory criterion, or bears evidence of personal Ministerial approval for
any such relaxation.
21. The renewal letter dated 07.02.2022, the first of the annual renewals,
opens with the words “I am directed to refer to this Department‟s letter of
even number dated 27.11.2020 vide which recognition to National Yogasana
Sports Federation was granted…”.It then renews recognition “beyond
27.11.2020 upto 31.12.2021 and for year 2022 upto 31.12.2022”, i.e.,
retroactively for a period that had already elapsed at the time the letter was
issued. The same letter, at paragraph 4, still requires Yogasana Bharat
to “amend its constitution and bye-laws in line with the provisions of the
Sports Code” and to “ensure that the State/UT units are constituted within 6
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
14
months”, requirements identical to those imposed in Conditions (f) and (l) of
the original recognition letter of 27.11.2020, which had themselves required
compliance within six months and two years respectively. Fourteen months
after the original recognition, neither had been fulfilled.
22. From the annual recognition letter for the year 2023, issued on
22.01.2024, onwards, a further qualification was introduced. Each
subsequent renewal was granted not unconditionally but explicitly “subject
to the final outcome of the relevant court case(s).The same condition
appears verbatim in the renewal letters for 2024 issued on 02.01.2025 and
for 2025 issued on 15.10.2025. It is upon this factual foundation that the
issues for adjudication arise.
II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. PETITIONER
23. Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the recognition granted to Yogasana Bharat vide letter dated 27.11.2020
was illegal from its inception and must be quashed. The foundational
submission advanced by Mr. Mehra is that Yogasana Bharat was admittedly
ineligible for recognition under the mandatory eligibility criteria of the
Sports Code on the date it applied and on the date recognition was granted.
24. Mr. Mehra submits that Yogasana Bharat had existed barely for three
months on 27.11.2020, falling short of the three year existence requirement
by 33 months. It had no State or Union Territory affiliations, a deficit
confessed in Condition (f) of the recognition letter itself. It had no audited
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
15
accounts, having existed for only three months. It had conducted no national
championships at any level, Senior, Junior, or Sub-Junior, for any year
preceding its application, let alone three consecutive years. And it was
structurally incapable of satisfying the autonomy requirement, having been
constituted on the recommendation of a body that was itself promoted by the
Ministry of AYUSH, under whose institutional aegis it operated from the
moment of its formation.
25. Learned Senior Counsel submits that these are not technical
procedural deficiencies susceptible to waiver or subsequent cure. They are
substantive conditions precedent to the exercise of the power of recognition.
Their absence on 27.11.2020 rendered the recognition void ab initio. He
further submits that both respondents’ counsel, in the course of oral
arguments before this Court, candidly admitted that the mandatory criteria of
the Sports Code had not been satisfied at the time recognition was granted,
an admission that learned senior counsel submits is conclusive on this aspect
of the case.
26. The petitioner has raised concerns over the involvement of Ministry
of AYUSH and the complete absence of independent examination by the
Sports Ministry. He submits that the entire decision to recognise Yogasana
Bharat was driven exclusively by the recommendation of the Ministry of
AYUSH, a fact that the Sports Ministry itself admitted in unambiguous
terms in its Counter Affidavit.
27. It is submitted that the power to recognise National Sports Federations
is vested exclusively in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports under the
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
16
Allocation of Business Rules, 1961. It is not a power that may be delegated
to or exercised at the dictation of another Ministry. It was impermissible for
the Sports Ministry to treat the recommendation of the Ministry of AYUSH
as the beginning and end of its inquiry, without independently examining
whether Yogasana Bharat satisfied the mandatory criteria of the Sports
Code. The Ministry did not examine those criteria. It did not examine the
petitioner’s competing credentials and even failed to conduct a comparative
assessment of the two applicants. It received a recommendation and merely
acted upon it.
28. The petitioner submits that the recognition decision was tainted by a
structural conflict of interest. The Ministry of AYUSH, which recommended
Yogasana Bharat, had itself promoted the creation of the International
Yogasana Sports Federation in November 2019.Yogasana Bharat’s
President headed the Morarji Desai National Institute of Yoga, an institution
under the very Ministry that recommended Yogasana Bharat. The
recognition chain, from the international body’s creation to the national
body’s formation to the inter-ministerial recommendation to the grant of
recognition, was a single continuous governmental act dressed in the clothes
of independent sporting governance, and violates Clause 3.17 of the Sports
Code and Article 27.6 of the Olympic Charter, which mandates that sports
bodies must preserve their autonomy and resist all pressures of any kind,
including but not limited to political, legal, religious or economic pressures.
29. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner additionally submits that the
Sports Ministry is not expected to act as a rubber stamp for inter-ministerial
recommendations any more than it is expected to act as a rubber stamp for
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
17
international federation recommendations, and that independent examination
of the mandatory criteria is not a discretionary exercise but a statutory
obligation.
30. He submits that the speaking order dated 19.10.2021 was passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice. A RTI response submitted by
Yogasana Bharat through the Ministry of AYUSH on 14.10.2021 was relied
upon to make adverse findings against the petitioner without ever being
disclosed to them or affording the petitioner an opportunity to respond.
Additionally, the speaking order comprehensively examined why the
petitioner should not be recognised but never examined whether Yogasana
Bharat met the mandatory criteria. In non-compliance with this Court’s
direction of 22.04.2021 which explicitly required consideration of whether
Yogasana Bharat’s recognition be continued or not.
31. On the annual renewals, the petitioner submits they are consequential
and derivative orders, the first of which expressly refers to and derives from
the parent recognition of 27.11.2020.
B. RESPONDET NO.1 (MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND
SPORTS)
32. Mr. Udit Dedhiya, learned counsel for Sports Ministry submits that
the recognition granted to Yogasana Bharat was a lawful exercise of their
discretionary power under the Sports Code and does not warrant any
interference.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
18
33. He submits that the recognition of NSF is not a matter of right. Clause
5.1 of Annexure-II of the Sports Code places the grant of recognition purely
within the discretion of the Government of India, subject to terms and
conditions as it deems appropriate. The petitioner therefore cannot claim that
any statutory right has been infringed by the Ministry’s decision to recognise
Yogasana Bharat and accordingly petitioner lacks locus standi to sustain the
present proceedings.
34. Justifying Ministry of AYUSH’s involvement Mr. Dedhiya places
reliance on Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961
(hereinafter “1961 Rules”) and submits that Rule 4 of 1961 Rules provides
for concurrence of all concerned ministries, where the subject matter
concerns more than one ministry. The Ministry of AYUSH’s letter dated
29.10.2020 was precisely such a concurrence, i.e., a communication from
the Ministry responsible for yoga informing the Ministry responsible for
sports of the existence of a body suited to govern Yogasana as a competitive
sport.
35. Sports Ministry submits to have duly considered the application of
Yogasana Bharat, weighed the recommendation of Ministry of AYUSH, and
exercised its discretion in granting recognition to Yogasana Bharat. Learned
counsel further submits that the mere fact that Ministry of AYUSH
promoted the establishment of Yogasana as a sport and endorsed Yogasana
Bharat does not lead to the conclusion that the autonomy of Yogasana
Bharat is compromised, since Ministry of AYUSH was discharging its own
domain responsibilities and has no role in the management or day-to-day
functioning of Yogasana Bharat.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
19
36. Learned counsel submits that Yogasana as a competitive sporting
discipline cannot be equated with traditional well-established sports. It lays
emphasis only on the physical side of yoga, where points are awarded on the
basis of balance, control, flexibility, and endurance. The sport was first
introduced through the efforts of the Ministry of AYUSH and, thereafter,
supported by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.
37. The provisions of the Sports Code are flexible in certain situations
and cannot be read divorced from the context of a particular sport or its
stage of development. The recognition of Yogasana Bharat was granted
keeping in view the nascent nature of Yogasana as a sport and the need to
have a National Sports Federation that would promote and develop it. Mr.
Dedhiya submits that the Sports Code cannot be mechanically applied to
nascent and emerging sports and that the Sports Ministry retains the power
to grant relaxations to newly created bodies governing new and emerging
disciplines.
38. Learned counsel submits that Yogasana Bharat has received annual
recognition for five successive years, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025,
having submitted the requisite documentation under the annual recognition
system for each year. Each annual recognition constitutes an independent
fresh grant by the Sports Ministry upon satisfaction of compliance at the
relevant time. The grant of five successive annual recognitions is itself
evidence that the Sports Ministry was satisfied on each occasion that
Yogasana Bharat had met the legal and regulatory requirements applicable
at the time. The latest recognition of 15.10.2025 is the operative recognition
today and holds full force.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
20
C. RESPONDENT NO. 3 (YOGASANA BHARAT)
39. Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, learned counsel for Yogasana Bharat submits
that the recognition dated 27.11.2020 was validly granted, and that they
since recognition have achieved full compliance with the Sports Code and,
therefore, the present writ is not maintainable.
40. He submits that Yogasana Bharat, was not, in any meaningful sense, a
newly created body at the time of recognition. It was formed as a
consequence of the coming together of several long-standing yoga societies
and organisations from across India, including bodies registered under the
Societies Registration Act for decades. Learned counsel submits that the
institutional depth of these constituent bodies must be reckoned with when
assessing Yogasana Bharat’s experience and track record, and that the three
month old registration is not the true measure of the body’s institutional
vintage.
41. It is their version that the sport of Yogasana as developed and
administered by Yogasana Bharat is an entirely new and novel sporting
discipline, distinct from the general practice of yoga in which the petitioner
has been engaged. Learned counsel submits that Yogasana Bharat has
invented an entirely new competitive form by curating an original
curriculum, syllabus, point systems, judging standards, and intellectual
property framework. Conversely, the petitioner conducts competitions in the
general discipline of yoga, which, he submits, had not taken the form of a
competitive sport before Yogasana Bharat’s intervention. Since the
petitioner does not conduct the sport of Yogasana as curated by Yogasana
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
21
Bharat, it cannot, even if recognised, replace the present recognised NSF for
the sport of Yogasana as the administrator of that sport.
42. Mr. Rohatgi further submits that the petitioner’s own constitution is
not compliant with the Sports Code, it lacks tenure restrictions for office
bearers, age limits, provision for inclusion of twenty-five percent prominent
sportspersons, and a clearly constituted executive body. A body that itself
violates the governing law has no locus to challenge the recognition of a
third party in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. He submits
that where the petitioner body itself violates the Sports Code, the appropriate
course is to treat the petition as a public interest litigation, not a writ petition
by an aggrieved party.
III. ANALYSIS
A. ILLEGALITY OF ORIGINAL RECOGNITION
43. Yogasana Bharat and Sports Ministry have raised two preliminary
contentions that fall for disposal at the threshold. The first is that the
petitioner lacks locus standi to maintain the present petition, inasmuch, as
recognition of a National Sports Federation is a matter of pure executive
discretion and no body/organisation has a vested right to it. The second is
that the petitioner’s own alleged non-compliance with the Sports Code
disentitles it from questioning the recognition granted to a third party.
44. On the first contention: it is undoubtedly correct, and the petitioner
does not dispute, that Clause 5.1 of Annexure II of the Sports Code
stipulates that recognition of a National Sports Federation is not a matter of
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
22
right and shall be purely at the discretion of the Government of India. The
absence of a vested right to receive recognition, however, is an entirely
different proposition from the right to challenge an illegal exercise of
executive power. These two rights occupy different legal terrains and must
not be conflated. The right to receive recognition is a creature of executive
grace, granted at the Government’s discretion.
45. The right to challenge an illegal executive act is a constitutional
guarantee, flowing from Article 226 of the Constitution. In Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India2, the Supreme
Court recognised that locus standi in an Article 226 petition exists not only
where a contractual right is denied but also where a person complains of
denial of equal opportunity, the very gravamen of the petitioner’s case here.
46. The petitioner, throughout the pendency of its application, was never
told it was ineligible. It was given an assurance as latest as July 2020 that its
application was under active consideration. When, four months later, a
three-month-old body was recognised without even a mention of the
petitioner’s application, the petitioner was denied the equal opportunity to
which it was entitled. The petitioner may not possess a vested right to
recognition itself, the right to fair consideration of its application is a basic
facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Any infraction of that right,
thereto, is capable of being adjudicated by the constitutional court.
2
(1979) 3 SCC 489.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
23
47. That denial is sufficient to vest locus standi. The Supreme Court in
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed &Ors.3
held that the expression “aggrieved person” is an elastic concept that cannot
be confined within rigid bounds, and that a person who has a particular
interest beyond that of the general public and who suffers prejudice as a
direct consequence of an illegal administrative action has locus standi to
invoke the Court’s certiorari jurisdiction, irrespective of whether a vested
right to the benefit in question exists in that person’s favour.
48. The petitioner, having applied for recognition years before Yogasana
Bharat was registered and having had its application ignored without even a
mention in the impugned recognition letter, has precisely such a particular
interest. To hold otherwise would be to permit illegal administrative action
to clothe itself in immunity by the simple device of characterising the
subject matter as discretionary.
49. The second contention, that the petitioner’s own alleged non-
compliance with the Sports Code disentitles it from challenging the
recognition granted to Yogasana Bharat equally merits rejection. The
inquiry before this Court is directed at the legality of what the Ministry of
Youth Affairs and Sports did in November 2020. That inquiry is neither
enlarged nor diminished by the worthiness or unworthiness of the petitioner
as a competing claimant.
50. The question of the petitioner’s compliance with the Sports Code is a
matter appropriately examined in the recognition process itself, to be
3
(1976) 1 SCC 671.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
24
conducted fairly and in accordance with law. The respondents’ contention, if
accepted, would produce a result that the law has consistently refused to
countenance: that an illegal executive act can insulate itself from judicial
challenge by pointing to the alleged deficiencies of the challenger. The
Supreme Court in Directorate of Film Festivals &Ors. v. Gaurav Ashwin
Jain & Ors.4 drew a clear distinction between (i) a challenge to the legality
of a benefit unlawfully conferred upon another person, which is
maintainable under Article 14, and (ii) a claim seeking extension of that very
illegality to oneself on grounds of parity, which Article 14 does not permit.
Equality before law cannot be invoked to perpetuate or replicate an illegal
benefit.
51. The Supreme Court drew a distinction between a party who
challenges the illegal grant of a benefit to another, which is permissible, and
a party who seeks a similar illegal benefit for itself by relying on that
illegality, which is not permissible. The petitioner unambiguously occupies
the former position. It does not seek recognition for itself on the ground that
Yogasana Bharat was recognised despite non-compliance. It challenges the
illegality of that recognition. That challenge is maintainable in law.
52. The Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi,5 laid down through a Constitutional Bench that non-
arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and Article 14 strikes
at arbitrariness in all State action, whether legislative or executive. Para 16
of the judgment is extracted hereinunder:-
4
(2007) 4 SCC 737.
5
AIR 1981 SC 487.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
25
“16. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be
of the legislature or of the executive or of an ‘authority’ under Article 12,
Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State
action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness
pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which
runs through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution.”
53. Similarly, in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P.,6 the
Supreme Court reinforced that State action in every domain, including
executive action, must be non-arbitrary and must not be guided by
extraneous or irrelevant considerations. Para 13 of the judgment is extracted
hereinunder:-
“13. It can no longer be doubted at this point of time that Article 14 of the
Constitution of India applies also to matters of governmental policy and if
the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters,
fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional…”
54. Annexure II of the Sports Code prescribes the eligibility criteria for
recognition of a National Sports Federation. The criteria directly applicable
to this case are Clauses 3.3, 3.4, and 3.8,. Clause 3.3 mandates three years of
active existence. Yogasana Bharat was registered on 21.08.2020. The
recognition letter is dated 27.11.2020. The body had existed for
approximately three months. The shortfall is thirty-three months, not a
marginal technical deficit but a yawning chasm between the requirement
and the body’s reality.
55. Clause 3.4, provides for a precondition of affiliated units in at least
two-thirds of States and Union Territories: Yogasana Bharat had no State or
Union Territory affiliations on the date of recognition. The recognition letter
6
(1991) 1 SCC 212.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
26
at Condition (f) granted Yogasana Bharat two years to constitute State and
UT units, units whose prior existence is a mandatory precondition for
recognition, not a consequence of it. A condition directing future
compliance with a precondition that should already have been met is not a
cure for the present absence of that condition. It is a confession.
56. Clause 3.8, dictates the requirement of three consecutive National
Championships at Senior, Junior, and Sub-Junior levels for both men and
women for three years preceding the year of recognition: Yogasana Bharat
had conducted no National Championship of any kind before it was
recognised. The deficit is total.
57. The recognition of 27.11.2020 is therefore, on the face of the record
and on the respondents own admissions, the recognition of a body that was
ineligible on every one of three mandatory criteria. This is not a case of
technical non-compliance or procedural irregularity susceptible to
condonation. This is a case of the complete absence of the substantive
qualifications that the law demands as conditions precedent to the lawful
exercise of the power of recognition. The word mandatory has a specific and
settled meaning. As where the legislature or the rule-making authority has
prescribed conditions as conditions precedent to the exercise of a power,
those conditions must be fulfilled before the power is exercised. Their non-
fulfilment renders the exercise of power not merely voidable but void.
58. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra), the Supreme Court held that
where a tender notice creates a mandatory eligibility condition, deviation
from it renders the award illegal. It laid down that the mandatory conditions
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
27
precedent to the exercise of a statutory or executive power must be satisfied
before the power is exercised. Paragraph 6 of the judgment is extracted
hereinunder:-
“6…The 1st respondent, being a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the
Constitution or in any event a public authority, was bound to give effect to
the condition of eligibility set up by it and was not entitled to depart from
it at its own sweet will without rational justification…this was a condition
of eligibility to be satisfied by every person submitting a tender and if in
case of any person, this condition was not satisfied, his tender was
ineligible for being considered.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
59. Respondents defence against this apparently incontrovertible position
of relying on Clause 5.1, which provides for recognition being a
discretionary process, is unfounded. The discretion is whether to grant
recognition to a body that has satisfied all the mandatory criteria. It is not a
discretion to grant recognition to a body that has satisfied none. To hold
otherwise would render the mandatory conditions of Annexure II of the
Sports Code entirely illusory, i.e., suggestions in the garb of conditions,
standards in the garb of requirements. The entire framework of the Sports
Code would collapse into an instrument of executive convenience rather
than a charter of good governance.
60. Paragraph 2 of the Recognition letter, is the Sports Ministry’s own
account of why Yogasana Bharat was recognised. It reads as an admission
rather than a justification. The recognition is attributed, in its entirety, to the
recommendation of the Ministry of AYUSH. No examination of Yogasana
Bharat’s eligibility against the mandatory criteria of the Sports Code is
disclosed. No comparative assessment of the three pending applicants is
recorded or special circumstances warranting departure from the eligibility
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
28
framework are identified. Paragraph 2 of the Recognition letter is
reproduced as under:-
“2. The matter for granting recognition to a national level sports body for
the sport of Yogasana has been deliberated at length taking into account
all the relevant factors including developing Yogasana as a competitive
sport. On recommendation of the Ministry of AYUSH, it has been‟
decided to recognize National Yogasana Sports Federation as a National
Sports Federation with immediate effect for promotion and development
of Yogasana as a competitive sport in the country. National Yogasana
Sports Federation has affiliation of International Yogasana Sports
Federation.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
61. The recognition letter reveals, with a candour that is perhaps
unintended, is not the exercise of a discretion but the abdication of one. The
Sports Ministry, vested with the exclusive power to recognise National
Sports Federations, reduced itself to the role of an instrument for
implementing the recommendation of a Ministry whose domain is wellness
and not sport. The decision to recognise was of Ministry of AYUSH. That
disjunction between the repository of power and the source of decision is the
core illegality in this case.
62. The position would certainly have been otherwise had the Sports
Ministry independently examined Yogasana Bharat’s eligibility against the
mandatory criteria of the Sports Code and arrived at its own conclusion,
with the Ministry of AYUSH’s recommendation serving as one input among
several rather than as the sole basis for the decision. This Court does not
hold that the recommendation itself was impermissible, the involvement of
the Ministry of AYUSH was constitutionally grounded and the subject
matter genuinely engaged the domain of both Ministries. What concerns this
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
29
Court is the manner in which that recommendation was acted upon. A
recommendation, however legitimately rendered, cannot substitute for the
independent application of mind that the law requires of the authority vested
with the power to decide. The exercise of that power must remain free from
influence and must be subjected to the Sports Ministry’s own independent
adjudication, tested against the criteria the Sports Code itself prescribes.
63. In Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar,7 the
Supreme Court held that where a statutory authority exercises its power at
the dictation of another authority, it amounts to abdication of its statutory
function, and the exercise of power is bad. Para 42 and 43 of the judgment
reads as under:-
“42. The power exercisable by the Cane Commissioner under cl. 6(1) is a
statutory power. He alone could have exercised that power. While
exercising that power he cannot abdicate his responsibility in favour of
anyone–not even in favour of the State Government or the Chief Minister.
It was not proper for the Chief Minister to have interfered with the
functions of the Cane Commissioner. In this case what has happened is
that the power of the Cane Commissioner has been exercised by the Chief
Minister, an authority not recognised by cl. (6) read with cl. (11) but the
responsibility for making those orders was asked to be taken by the Cane
Commissioner.
43.The executive officers entrusted with statutory discretions may in
some cases be obliged to take into account considerations of public
policy and in some context the policy of a Minister or the Government as
a whole when it is a relevant factor in weighing the policy but this will
not absolve them from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in
individual cases unless explicit statutory provision has been made for
them to be given binding instructions by a superior.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
7
(1969) 1 SCC 308.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
30
64. The power to recognise National Sports Federations is vested under
the Allocation of Business Rules exclusively with the Sports Ministry. It is a
statutory, indeed a constitutional, power that must be exercised by the Sports
Ministry alone, applying the mandatory criteria of the Sports Code. Yet the
Sports Ministry implemented the Ministry of AYUSH’s recommendation
without independent examination. It acted, as the mouthpiece of the
recommending Ministry. That is abdication and an abdicated power is no
power at all.
65. This Court in Taekwondo Federation of India v. Union of India
&Ors.,8 stated the applicable standard with precision:
“Clearly, recognition of an NSF cannot be at the dictates/whims/directives
of any International Federation. The MYAS is not expected to act as a
mere rubber stamp and grant recognition to whichever body/entity is
handpicked by the International Federation irrespective of
antecedents/track record/conflict of interest issues afflicting such body.”
66. What was said of international federations applies with force equal to,
and indeed greater than, inter-ministerial recommendations. The recognition
of a National Sports Federation is the Sports Ministry’s exclusive domain.
When Sports Ministry received the Ministry of AYUSH’s recommendation
and treated it as the beginning and end of its inquiry, it did not exercise
discretion; rather, it surrendered to it. The distinction between consultation
and delegation, and also between weighing a recommendation and being
governed by it, is elementary and fundamental. The Government of India
(Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961, relied on by the respondents,
8
2025:DHC:10148.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
31
contemplate inter-ministerial concurrence; they do not contemplate inter-
ministerial abdication.
67. The lis in the present case requires precision on the involvement of
Ministry of AYUSH. The involvement of the Ministry of AYUSH was not,
in itself, constitutionally impermissible. Yoga and Yogasana engage the
functions of the Ministry of AYUSH, which is responsible for the
development and propagation of yoga, and the Sports Ministry, which is
responsible for the administration of sports and the recognition of National
Sports Federations.
68. Rule 4 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules,
1961 provides that where a subject engages more than one Department, the
matter is to be dealt with in concurrence with all concerned Departments. An
inter-ministerial recommendation in that context is not merely permissible, it
is expected. What is not permissible is Sports Ministry’s treatment of that
recommendation as determinative: as the sole and sufficient basis for the
recognition decision, displacing all independent examination of the
mandatory criteria of the Sports Code.
69. A recommendation received from Ministry of AYUSH was one input
to be weighed, and weighed against the mandatory criteria of the Sports
Code, not a directive to be implemented. Sports Ministry had the authority
and the constitutional duty to examine Yogasana Bharat’s application
independently. It did not do so. The entire record before this Court discloses
no document, no file noting, no internal assessment, no comparative analysis
in which Sports Ministry independently examined whether Yogasana Bharat
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
32
satisfied the mandatory criteria. The recognition was, in the Sports
Ministry’s own words, the product of AYUSH’s recommendation alone.
70. As the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India9 further
held, in a passage of lasting significance, that even the possibility of bias is
sufficient to vitiate a decision, and that the mere presence of a conflicted
participant must be taken to have influenced the decision of others. In the
present case, the Ministry of AYUSH was not merely a participant in the
recognition process, it was the architect of the entity whose recognition it
recommended. The conflict between interest and duty could not have been
more complete.
71. Paragraph 8.3 of the Sports Code prescribes eleven guiding factors for
the recognition decision, including the recognition by the relevant
international and Asian federations, the undisputed status as apex body in
India, all-India spread through State affiliations, role and contribution in
promoting the sport, and conduct of national championships.
72. The petitioner had international federation affiliation since 1989,
Asian federation affiliation since 2010, thirty-four State and UT affiliations,
forty-four consecutive National Championships, and six World
Championship victories. Yogasana Bharat had existed for three months. Not
a single line in the recognition letter, shows that the Sports Ministry applied
the para 8.3 factors to either applicant, let alone to both. The petitioner’s
application was not mentioned. It was, for all practical purposes, invisible to
the authority that was constitutionally obligated to consider it.
9
(1969) 2 SCC 262.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
33
73. This is a violation not merely of the Sports Code but of the equality
guarantee of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court
in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra) held that State action must not be
guided by extraneous or irrelevant considerations, and that the basic
requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State. The grant of
recognition to a three-month-old body, on the basis of an inter-ministerial
recommendation alone, without comparative assessment of a competing
pending application, without application of the mandatory criteria of the
governing code, and without even acknowledging the competing claimant’s
existence, is not a fair action. It is an arbitrary action. It violates the golden
thread of non-arbitrariness that runs, in the words of his Lordship then,
in Ajay Hasia (supra), through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution.
B. APPLICABILITY OF RELAXATION CLAUSE
74. The Roman legal tradition preserved a maxim of deceptive
simplicity: nova constitution futuris formam imponeredebet, non praeteritis ,
a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past. The Supreme
Court observed in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi v.
Vatika Township Private Limited,10 a foundational rule of construction,
indeed, a foundational rule of fairness, that legislative and executive
instruments operate prospectively unless a contrary intention is expressed
clearly and beyond doubt.
75. The respondents in the present case urge this Court to set aside that
principle, to reach back across the two months and five days that separate
10
(2015) 1 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
34
the recognition letter of 27.11.2020 from the relaxation clause of
01.02.2021, and to validate by a subsequent instrument what was illegal
when it was done. That invitation is declined. A power that did not exist on
the date of exercise cannot be discovered to have existed through the
retrospective operation of an instrument that was not in force. The
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Vatika Township (supra) held
at paragraph 32:-
“32. The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the
principle of ‘fairness’, which must be the basis of every legal rule.
Legislations which modify accrued rights or which impose obligations or
impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as
prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a
retrospective effect….”
76. The relaxation clause was introduced and operates from 01.02.2021. It
cannot reach back to 27.11.2020. This is not a technical objection
susceptible to equitable override. It is the elementary rule of temporal
operation of law. To hold, otherwise, would mean that any illegal
recognition can be validated at any future date by introducing a power of
relaxation, a conclusion that would reduce the entire mandatory framework
of the Sports Code to an exercise in retrospective cure. The law does not
permit the executive to write its own amnesty.
77. The Sports Code requires, as conditions precedent, that the applicant
body have existed for three years, have affiliations in two-thirds of States
and Union Territories, have audited accounts, and have conducted
consecutive national championships before recognition is granted. These are
not procedural requirements governing the form of the recognition decision.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
35
They are substantive conditions precedent to the grant of recognition. Their
purpose is to ensure that the body being invested with the exclusive
authority to govern a competitive discipline at the national level has
demonstrated the institutional depth, democratic representativeness, and
administrative capacity that such governance demands, before it receives
that authority.
78. Yogasana Bharat in its reply has submitted that the Sports Code is not
a statute but a compilation of executive orders and circulars issued in
exercise of the executive power of the Union under Article 73 of the
Constitution; the executive power that created those orders inherently
includes the power to depart from them; the relaxation clause of 01.02.2021
merely gave explicit form to what was always implicit in the executive’s
sovereign power; and therefore, the recognition of 27.11.2020 was a valid
exercise of an implied executive power to relax mandatory requirements.
Para 15 (f) of respondent No.3’s reply dated 05.05.2026 is reproduced as
under:-
“In so far as the exemption clause introduced vide letter dated01.02.2021
is concerned, it is submitted that the letter dated01.02.2021 only makes
explicit what was implicit. It is submitted that the power to exempt a
nascent sporting body from the rigours of the Sports Code was always a
part of the discretionary powers of the UOI under the provisions of the
Sports Code. It is pertinent to note that the Sports Code is not a statute,
but is only a compilation of various orders, notifications, circulars, etc.,
issued by the Ministry of Sports from time to time. Thus, it does not carry
the force of a statute. Thus, the authority to grant any exemption or
waiver from such orders, notifications, circulars, etc. is inherently
embedded in the very executive power under which these orders,
notifications, and circulars were issued. This reasoning clearly algins
with the well-accepted and well-established „doctrine of implied powers‟
of the government. This doctrine envisages that the apart from the
powers which areexpressly enumerated in the statutes/policy documents,Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
36
the government also possesses powers which are necessary andproper
toexecute its functions effectively. It is thus submitted that the letter
dated 01.02.2021 was only a clarificatory letter and did not introduce a
new power which the UOI did not already possess.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
79. The executive power of the Union, as vested by Article 73 of the
Constitution, extends to all matters with respect to which Parliament has
power to make laws. The executive’s capacity to issue and modify executive
guidelines is inherent in that power. This much is not in dispute. What the
Yogasana Bharat’s argument overlooks, and what destroys it, is that the
executive power, like all governmental power is not a license to act
arbitrarily. The executive power may be plenary in its extent, but it must be
exercised consistently with the norms and conditions that the executive has
itself prescribed.
80. The implied power argument, therefore, proves too much. Taken to its
logical conclusion, it dissolves the mandatory character of every provision
of the Sports Code. If the executive power inherently includes the power to
depart from any of the Sports Code’s conditions at any time, then no
condition is genuinely mandatory, each is optional, exercisable at the Sports
Ministry’s pleasure, with the implied power to depart from it available as a
perennial escape. That reading would convert the Sports Code from a
governance framework into a ceremonial declaration.
81. Even if an implied power to relax existed before 01.02.2021, which is
denied for the reasons stated above, that implied power would be no broader
than and would be circumscribed by the same conditions that govern the
explicit relaxation clause that was eventually introduced to formalise it. The
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
37
explicit Clause 16 prescribes two specific conditions: reasons for the
relaxation must be recorded in writing, and the power must be exercised by
the Minister in charge personally. These are not incidental procedural
formalities. They are essential safeguards against arbitrary use of the
relaxation power, accountability mechanisms ensuring that departures from
the mandatory framework are deliberate, reasoned, and personally
authorised by the appropriate authority. An implied power, if it exists,
carries no lesser burden. The formalisation of a power does not enlarge it, it
defines it. If the explicit power requires reasons in writing and Ministerial
approval, the implied power can demand no less.
82. This Court in Rajasthan Equestrian Association v. Union of
India,11while upholding the validity of the relaxation clause as an executive
mechanism, emphasised that the power to relax must be exercised
judiciously, with adequate reasoning, and in a manner guided by principles
of accountability and transparency. The requirement of adequate reasoning,
therefore, is not a verbal flourish, it is the substantive condition that
distinguishes a lawful exercise of the relaxation power from an arbitrary
departure from mandatory criteria.
83. The nascent sport doctrine, the proposition that the Sports Code
cannot be mechanically applied to new and emerging sports, has found
expression in All India Pickleball Association v. Union of India &Anr.,12.
The Pickleball case recognised that insisting on mechanical and uniform
application of the Sports Code to nascent disciplines would be
11
2025 SCC OnLine Del 14.
12
2026:DHC:836.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
38
“fundamentally flawed and tantamount to treating unequals as equals.” This
Court, with respect to the coordinate Bench, does not quarrel with that
principle in the abstract. However, the Pickleball case does not assist
Yogasana Bharat, and its application here is distinguished on three grounds
that are not matters of nuance but of elementary legal difference.
84. First, and most fundamental ground is that the Pickleball case (supra)
was decided on 02.02.2026, under the post-01.02.2021 regime in which the
relaxation clause was a formal, operative instrument of the Sports Code. The
challenged recognition in the present case was granted on 27.11.2020, two
months and five days before the relaxation clause came into existence. One
cannot apply to a November 2020 decision the legal regime that began in
February 2021. The applicable law must be assessed as it stood at the time
the challenged action was taken, a principle settled beyond argument and
restated by the Supreme Court in Vatika Township (supra) when it held that
instruments that impose new obligations or attach new disabilities operate
prospectively. The Pickleball regime and the 27.11.2020 recognition inhabit
different legal worlds, separated by the date of 01.02.2021.
85. Second, in Pickleball (supra), the relaxation clause was formally
invoked. The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports passed a specific order
exercising the power under Clause 16, recording reasons for the relaxation
in terms of Pickleball‟s (supra) nascent status and the Ministry’s assessment
of comparative compliance, and granting limited and specified exemptions
from two identified criteria, Clauses 3.3 and 3.10. Pickleball (supra) at
paragraph 23 records this expressly: “the relaxations were granted in
furtherance of the objective of promoting an emerging sport and in view of
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
39
IPA‟s otherwise substantial compliance with the Code. Relaxations were
granted…in exercise of the Powers laid down under Clause 16 of the Sports
Code.” In the present case, no such invocation, reasons, or ministerial order
exists, and no identified criteria are being relaxed. The procedural rigour that
distinguished the Pickleball (supra) recognition as lawful is entirely absent
from the recognition of 27.11.2020.
86. Third, that he Sports Code does not create a category called nascent
sport. The classification at Annexure XXXVIII of the Sports Code divides
sports into three categories, Priority Sports, General Category Sports, and
Others. There is no “nascent sport” category. The concept of nascent sport
as a stand-alone justification for departure from mandatory eligibility criteria
is a judicial gloss, however well-intentioned, that finds no textual support in
the Sports Code itself. Where a code is silent on a category, Courts must be
cautious about reading that category into existence. Pickleball (supra)
recognition of the nascent sport doctrine is a matter of continuing judicial
debate, particularly given the pending Division Bench’s examination of this
Court in LPA Nos. 212 and 224 of 2026. This Court need not take a
definitive position on that doctrine in the abstract, because the three grounds
of distinction outlined above mean that even if the nascent sport doctrine
were accepted in full, it would not save the recognition of 27.11.2020.
C. VALIDITY OF THE SPEAKING ORDER
87. The ancient maxim audi alteram partem, hear the other side, is one of
the oldest principles of administered justice known to any legal system. Its
roots run deeper than statute and precedent. The story goes that God himself,
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
40
before pronouncing judgment in the Garden of Eden, first asked Adam:
“Where were you, and what have you done?” The proceduralist might
observe that divine justice, too, began with a hearing. Whatever the
theological precision of that reading, the principle it illustrates has been
indispensable to justice in every era: no person shall be condemned without
being heard, and, equally important, no person shall be condemned on the
basis of material that was never placed before them.
88. It meant that the Sports Ministry while passing the speaking order of
19.10.2021 pursuant to this Court’s specific directions was bound by the
principle of audi alteram partem no less than a formal tribunal. The
principle was not a procedural grace that the Ministry could choose to
extend or withhold. As the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief
Election Commissioner13, identified the principle at its most fundamental by
holding that “The soul of the rule is fair play in action.”
89. Sports Ministry after the conclusion of hearings, and specifically on
14.10.2021, five days before the speaking order was passed on 19.10.2021,
received an RTI response pertaining to the petitioner’s registration status
under the Haryana Registration Act, 2005. This document had been obtained
by Yogasana Bharat and submitted through the Ministry of AYUSH. It was
not disclosed to the petitioner. The petitioner was not given any opportunity
to respond to it. Additional Affidavit of Sports Ministry filed pursuant to this
Court’s order of 02.04.2026 confirms that the speaking order relied upon
this RTI document to record the specific adverse finding that the
13
AIR 1978 SC 851.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
41
petitioner “had not fulfilled the requirements under the Haryana
Registration Act, 2005.”
90. The speaking order, thus, made an adverse finding against the
petitioner on the basis of a document obtained after the hearing was
concluded, transmitted through a third-party channel, the Ministry of
AYUSH, and never disclosed to the petitioner. In effect, the petitioner was
condemned on evidence it never saw and never had the opportunity to
explain or contradict.
91. The RTI document was received by the Sports Ministry on
14.10.2021. The speaking order was passed on 19.10.2021. There were five
days between the receipt of the adverse material and the passing of the
order, ample time, to give a short, reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to
explain the adverse finding. That opportunity was not given. The order was
passed on the basis of undisclosed material amounting to a textbook
violation of audi alteram partem.
92. Yogasana Bharat submits that the dual-registration finding was based
on independent verification of publicly available information from official
government websites, and that the petitioner cannot claim a violation of its
right to be heard on facts that were publicly verifiable. This submission does
not cure the violation. The right of an authority to conduct independent
verification is not disputed. What is impermissible is the reliance upon the
specific RTI document submitted through the Ministry of AYUSH in
making the specific adverse finding, without disclosing that document to the
petitioner. The question to be dealt with is not whether the information was
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
42
theoretically available in the public domain. Rather, if the petitioner was
allowed to address the specific material that was relied upon.
93. Theoretical public availability does not substitute for actual disclosure
and actual opportunity to respond. In Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of
Maharashtra,14 the Supreme Court held that an adjudicatory body cannot
base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought
to be utilised has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to
it. Relevant Paragraph 17 is reproduced as under:-
“17. It is a well-established principle of administrative law that an
adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the
person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and
given an opportunity to respond to it. Surveying the precedents
extensively, MP Jain & SN Jain‟s treatise on Principles of Administrative
Law1 notes that:
“If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material,
evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the
same must be brought to his notice and he be given an
opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a
fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to
be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to
respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little
value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence
against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The
right to know the material on which the authority is going to base
its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without
disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its
consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the
decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective
opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The
principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements
where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been
held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
14
(2023) 11 SCC 130.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
43
94. Additionally, this Court’s order dated 22.04.2021 directed Sports
Ministry to pass appropriate orders “in accordance with the Sports Code,
2011 and to also consider whether R3‟s recognition be continued or not.”
The direction is in explicit terms and has two components. The first is to
pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Sports Code. The second, and
critically important, is to consider whether Yogasana Bharat’s recognition
should be continued.
95. The duty to give reasons for administrative decisions affecting rights
is itself a principle of natural justice, established and explained by the
Supreme Court in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India
Ltd. v. Union of India,15where it was held that:-
“If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and
tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of
Administrative law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that
administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper
hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give
sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by
them. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is
like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural
justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule
must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance
with it would not satisfy the requirement of law.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
96. The speaking order of 19.10.2021 comprehensively examined why the
petitioner was ineligible for recognition, finding its international affiliations
inaccurate and its legal status uncertain on account of dual registration.
Whatever the merits of those findings, on which this Court expresses no
opinion for the purposes of this challenge, the order then proceeded to
15
AIR 1976 SC 1785
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
44
uphold Yogasana Bharat’s recognition in a single conclusion, without once
asking, did Yogasana Bharat satisfy the mandatory eligibility criteria of
enshrined under Annexure II of the Sports Code on 27.11.2020. The order is
entirely and inexplicably silent on that question. The question most relevant
to whether Yogasana Bharat’s recognition should be continued or not, which
is the very question this Court directed the Sports Ministry to address,
receives no answer.
97. The pattern of this selective examination is deeply troubling. The
speaking order treated the exercise as one of determining whether the
challenger was meritorious, not whether the incumbent was lawfully
recognised. It proceeded as though this Court’s direction of 22.04.2021 was
a mandate to adjudicate petitioner’s claim to recognition, not a mandate to
re-examine the legality of Yogasana Bharat’s existing recognition. That is
not a permissible construction of the direction. The words “also consider
whether R3’s recognition be continued or not” admit of no narrow reading.
They required the Sports Ministry to test Yogasana Bharat’s recognition
against the standards of the Sports Code, specifically, to ask whether
Yogasana Bhrat met the mandatory eligibility criteria, and to record
reasoned conclusions on that specific question.
98. This Court in Taekwondo Federation of India v. Union of India,16
observed that Sports Ministry is expected to independently examine the
antecedents and track record of a body whose recognition it is being asked to
consider. In the present case, the Sports Ministry was not merely being
asked to consider recognition in the abstract, it was directed by this Court to
16
2025:DHC:10148
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
45
consider specifically whether Yogasana Bharat’s existing recognition should
be continued. That specific direction required specific examination and
specific findings which in no vein were provided. This Court’s directions
dated 22.04.2021 and 05.10.2021 required the Sports Ministry to conduct a
hearing and pass an order specifically addressing whether Yogasana
Bharat’s recognition ought to be continued. The speaking order dated
19.10.2021, while detailed on every aspect of the petitioner’s case, said
nothing, whatsoever, about Yogasana Bharat’s eligibility against the
mandatory criteria of the Sports Code. An order that examines only the
challenger and is silent on the very question it was directed to answer does
not discharge the mandate that occasioned its passing, it merely wears the
appearance of compliance while leaving the substance of the direction
unaddressed.
D. CAN THE ANNUAL RENEWAL LETTERS SURVIVE THE FALL
OF PARENT RECOGNITION
99. A spring that is poisoned at its source distributes that poison
throughout its course, into every tributary it feeds, every valley it waters,
every pool it fills. One may travel a great distance downstream and find the
water flowing apparently clear and fresh. But unless the source itself is
addressed, the poison travels with the water, and the outward appearance of
purity downstream does not alter the contamination at the source. This is not
to say that a defect at the source can never be cured; through fresh and
independent application of mind, one can regularise what was earlier infirm.
But that cure must come from an act of genuine reassessment, not from the
passive accumulation of time or the repetition of a flawed exercise. The
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
46
annual renewal letters in the present case are not such an act. They are the
tributaries of this case, and their source, the recognition of 27.11.2020, was
never revisited, never independently reassessed, and never cured by any
fresh exercise of the Sports Ministry’s discretion. The maxim vitium originis
non sanatur processu temporis, a defect of origin is not healed merely by the
passage of time, captures the principle in its proper, qualified form: time
alone does not cure illegality; only a genuine and independent correction
can. However many years the recognition has run, and however many
renewals have been issued without that correction, the foundational illegality
that attended its birth continues to attend it.
100. Yoganasa Bharat here has placed reliance on Clause 8.2 of the Sports
Code and the Sports Ministry’s letter dated 02.12.2009 (Annexure XV to the
Sports Code), which states that the system of annual recognition is akin to a
fresh recognition. This Court accepts that, as a prospective matter, the
annual recognition system operates independently: a body eligible in year
one may become ineligible in year two, and vice versa. But this prospective
independence has a necessary precondition, i.e., the existence of a validly
recognised body at the outset. The annual recognition system presupposes a
foundational recognition. Where that foundational recognition is void ab
initio, there is no valid substrate upon which the annual renewal process can
operate. The principle of nemo dat quod non habet applies: the Sports
Ministry cannot give through annual renewal what it never validly gave
through original recognition. A body that was never lawfully recognised
cannot become lawfully recognised through the annual renewal of its
unlawful recognition.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
47
101. The renewal letters themselves betray their derivative character. The
first renewal letter dated 07.02.2022 opens with the words: “I am directed to
refer to this Department‟s letter of even number dated 27.11.2020 vide
which recognition to National Yogasana Sports Federation was granted.” It
then renews recognition retroactively beyond 27.11.2020 upto 31.12.2021
and for year 2022 upto 31.12.2022. A retroactive renewal for a period that
had already expired, a mechanism unknown to and not contemplated by the
Sports Code, which speaks only of prospective annual recognition. A
renewal letter that identifies its parent letter by file number and date, and
that grants recognition for a period already elapsed, is not an independent
grant. It is an act of continuation dressed as a fresh exercise. Remove the
parent letter, and the renewal letter has no anchor and no meaning.
102. Furthermore, from the 2023 renewal onwards, each renewal was
explicitly “subject to the final outcome of the relevant court case(s)”, the
present writ petition. A recognition granted conditionally upon the outcome
of pending litigation does not acquire the character of an independent,
unconditional grant. It is, on its own terms, provisional. The Ministry, by
inserting this condition, acknowledged that the recognition of Yogasana
Bharat was the subject of pending judicial scrutiny and that its continuation
beyond the period of the recognition letter was contingent on the outcome of
these proceedings.
103. The image that best captures this situation is that of a building
constructed floor by floor above a foundation laid in violation of the
building code. The first floor is the recognition of 27.11.2020. Each
subsequent floor is an annual renewal. The building now has five storeys.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
48
Athletes train in it. Championships are held within its halls. From the
outside, it looks sturdy and well-appointed. But the engineer who approved
the foundation plan did not follow the rules, and at no stage thereafter did
any engineer return to inspect that foundation, test its adequacy, or certify it
afresh. Each certificate of occupancy issued for the floors above simply
assumed the foundation’s soundness; none independently verified it. Had
even one such certificate involved a genuine re-examination of the
foundation itself, the position may well have been different. In the absence
of any such independent verification, however, the defect at the base
remains exactly what it was on the day the first floor was laid, and it
continues to compromise everything built above it.
IV. CONCLUSION
104. Yogasana Bharat has, since 2020, built a substantial institutional
edifice: 33 State and UT affiliations, five National Championships at three
levels and two genders, inclusion in the National Games and Khelo India
Games, and most significantly the recognition of Asian Yogasana by the
Olympic Council of Asia, making Yogasana Bharat the only body through
which Indian athletes can presently compete in Asian-level Yogasana
events. The 1st World Yogasana Sports Championship conducted at
Ahmedabad in June 2026, with participation from over 45 countries is duly
taken note of.
105. This Court is alive to all of these considerations. But equitable
considerations, however compelling, cannot provide retrospective legal
validity to an executive action that was illegal when it was taken. What they
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
49
can and must do is inform the manner in which relief is crafted. It is settled
beyond doubt that the law’s remedy must not be worse than the disease it
cures. A surgical quashing, accompanied by carefully designed transitional
provisions, can vindicate the law without destroying what innocent third
parties, particularly the athletes, have built in reliance upon it.
106. The above discussion demands a recognition process to be conducted
properly, independently, and in accordance with the law. This Court does
want to crown a winner, but to repair the broken process
V. ORDER
107. The recognition letter dated 27.11.2020 issued by the Ministry of
Youth Affairs and Sports in favour of Yogasana Bharat as the National
Sports Federation for the sport of Yogasana and the speaking order dated
19.10.2021 passed pursuant to the directions of this Court are hereby
quashed and set aside.
108. The annual renewal letters issued to Yogasana Bharat for the years
2022 (letter dated 07.02.2022), 2023 (letter dated 22.01.2024), 2024 (letter
dated 02.01.2025), and 2025 (letter dated 15.10.2025) are hereby quashed as
consequential and derivative orders that cannot survive the quashing of the
foundational recognition of 27.11.2020.
109. Notwithstanding the quashing of the recognition letter dated
27.11.2020, the speaking order dated 19.10.2021, and the annual renewal
letters for the years 2022 to 2025, all certificates, titles, medals, rankings,
selections, and other recognitions conferred upon athletes, coaches, officials,
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
50
or any other individual participants in competitions, championships, and
selection trials conducted under the aegis of Yogasana Bharat during the
period such recognition was operative, shall remain valid and undisturbed.
The quashing directed by this judgment shall operate prospectively in its
effect upon such third-party beneficiaries and shall not be construed so as to
divest any athlete or individual of any achievement, honour, or selection
conferred in good faith during the subsistence of the impugned recognition.
110. The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, is directed to issue a public
notice within 60 days of the date of pronouncement of this judgment inviting
applications from all eligible bodies for recognition as the National Sports
Federation for the sport of Yoga/Yogasana. The recognition exercise shall
be completed with due expedition in accordance with law.
111. The petitioner, Yoga Federation of India, is not declared to be the
National Sports Federation for the sport of Yoga/Yogasana. That
determination lies exclusively within the domain of the Sports Ministry and
shall be made in the fresh recognition exercise conducted in accordance with
this order. It is further clarified that the quashing and setting aside of the
recognition letter dated 27.11.2020 and the speaking order dated 19.10.2021,
together with the retrospective protection granted under this judgment, are
intended solely to rectify the impugned process and to safeguard the
interests of athletes and other stakeholders. They shall not confer, create, or
be treated as conferring any right, legitimate expectation, preference, equity,
or other advantage in favour of the petitioner, nor shall they be relied upon
by the petitioner in support of any application or claim for recognition or
any other consequential benefit.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
51
112. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. All pending
applications stand disposed of accordingly.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
JULY 09, 2026
NK
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:09.07.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:03
KUMAR KAURAV
52
