New Delhi: The decades-old power structure at the All India Tennis Association is set for a complete overhaul, thanks to former players Somdev Devvarman and Purav Raja who took the AITA to court over concerns related to the conduct of polls, “mismanagement” and alleged non-adherence to national sports codes.
The Delhi High Court has now ordered a comprehensive amendment to the AITA’s Constitution and bylaws, and conduct of fresh Executive Committee elections by 30 September.
Via its decision last week, the vacation bench of justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain effectively balanced the need for accountability with the practical realities of international sports administration, ensuring reforms are effected without risking international derecognition to the tennis body.
Rather than adjudicating immediately on the merits of rival pleas, the Bench invited the two former players and the AITA to arrive at an “amicable and workable arrangement” to ensure that amendments to the AITA’s governance framework are undertaken “expeditiously”.
The tennis governing body has been in the news for its members allegedly using their official positions for personal gains. In September 2024, eight state associations moved a no-confidence motion against national president Anil Jain – also a former National General Secretary of the BJP and ex-Rajya Sabha MP. The motion was later withdrawn.
How the match began in court
The legal case started with a writ petition filed by former tennis stars Somdev Kishore Devvarman and Purav Mukul Raja in 2024, alleging that the 106 year old-AITA failed to implement the National Sports Development Code of India and subsequent judicial directions regarding age and tenure limits of members.
The petitioners argued that the AITA’s Constitution had remained unamended since 2000.
Hearing the petition, a single judge bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna in May 2026 appointed retired justice Gita Mittal as an Administrator to oversee the association, a move the AITA challenged before a larger bench as an “impermissible interference” in the affairs of an autonomous private society.
The AITA argued that international sporting bodies often view court-appointed administrators as “third-party interference” and may derecognise the AITA. It cited the previous suspension of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) by FIFA as a cautionary tale.
This concern was validated by a letter from the International Tennis Federation (ITF) dated 18 May 2026, which acknowledged the interim recognition of the AITA Executive Committee, but warned that should the Administrator continue beyond the court’s stipulated timelines, the ITF might “consider action under its regulatory framework, including review of the AITA’s membership status”.
Justice Pushkarna had also allowed the results of the September 2024 AITA elections to stand as an interim measure, but asked the AITA to submit the results to it in a “sealed cover”.
The two ex-players too moved the court against a portion of the single-judge bench order that allowed the Interim Executive Committee to function. The petitioners contended that under the prevailing legal framework, several elected members were “liable to be disqualified for being over-age or for breaching tenure and cooling-off requirements”.
Why was hearing expedited
The petitioners have alleged in their original plea that the AITA was found to be out of compliance with the sports governance framework.
In the appeal against the single judge’s order, they said that the AITA’s Constitution and bylaws have not been amended since 2000. Consequently, they do not reflect the requirements of the National Sports Development Code of India, nor the more recent National Sports Governance Act, 2025 and the National Sports Governance Rules, 2026.
The AITA has also been also accused of failing to comply with specific directions in previous court rulings, most notably the judgment in Rahul Mehra v. Union of India, which provided essential legal interpretations of how the Sports Code should be applied to national sports federations.
The vacation bench noted allegations of “serious mismanagement and factionalism” within the association, which the petitioners argued impaired its decision-making and defeated the institutional objectives required of a National Sports Federation.
Because of these lapses, the court determined it was “expedient and in the interest of justice” to mandate an immediate overhaul of the AITA’s governance to bring them into statutory alignment.
The verdict
To avoid risking international derecognition while ensuring reform, the vacation bench issued several interim directions—primarily the Interim Executive Committee must submit suggestions on draft amendments to the Administrator by 25 June 2026.
The Administrator will then finalise the proposed amendments by 15 July, after giving the Committee an “opportunity of hearing”.
An Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) must be convened by 31 July, where the General Body will “deliberate upon and vote on the proposed amendments clause by clause”. Following the constitutional overhaul, fresh elections for the Executive Committee must be conducted under the new rules on or before 30 September.
The ruling has immediate and far-reaching implications for the structure of Indian tennis. In a significant move to ensure broad participation, the court permitted State Tennis Associations to vote in the EGM and the upcoming elections “irrespective of whether they are compliant with the Sports Act” at the time of voting.
However, the new Executive Committee to be formed after the poll would ensure these state bodies comply with the law by 31 December.
By setting a hard deadline for fresh elections, the HC has sought to restore “lawful governance” while protecting the participation of Indian athletes in upcoming international events like the 2026 Asian Games. The court will review the progress of these directions as part-heard matters on 14 August.
Once the legal framework is reset, fresh elections for the AITA Executive Committee must be conducted under the new rules by the 30 September deadline.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: Deadline near, Delhi HC order reveals India still hasn’t sent names for karate for 2026 Asian Games