Chandigarh Olympic Association poll: HC-appointed administrator faces tough task of picking ‘genuine’ voters

Even as an administrator appointed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court has invited all local sports associations to attend a meeting on March 18 regarding the elections to the Chandigarh Olympic Association (COA), it will be a tough task for the administrator to pick ‘authentic’ voters.

Advertisement

The bone of contention among the COA office-bearers is the presence of alleged bogus or parallel sports associations who, for reasons best known to them, had played an important role in the COA elections.

While the HC-appointed administrator has called all associations on a single platform, every group will demand its share of voting rights for picking the new COA body. In such a scenario, the role of the UT Sports Department will be important. However, sources claimed even the Sports Department is not having the exact understanding of associations associated with the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) or Ministry of Sports or national associations or those headed by court appointed administrators and ad-hoc bodies and who are the ‘authentic’ voters.

Also, if the sports associations or their national bodies, including the COA, follow the National Sports Code — a standard procedure set by the Government of India.

The department is likely to overlook any data submitted by the COA, as the alleged bogus or parallel associations were very much part of the election process at the formation of the last COA house. In the midterm, differences emerged between COA factions and rounds of allegations and counter-allegations started.

In 2021, two factions of the COA were at loggerheads over their claims over the association. Two parallel elections were conducted and the IOA had appointed same observer for both elections.

Timeline

The court of Justice Kuldeep Tiwari had on January 17 ordered fresh elections to the association and directed the Chandigarh Deputy Commissioner to appoint an administrator for the same. The Chandigarh contingent for the Uttarakhand National Games was flagged off on January 25, where the COA office-bearers, along with sports department officials, carried out the proceedings.

On February 10, the Deputy Commissioner appointed Hari Kallikkat as the administrator. Hearing a 2021 writ petition filed by former COA secretary Raghumit Singh Sodhi, the court had ordered fresh elections to the association. The order also mentioned the appointment of an administrator for conducting the elections.

“The administrator appointed by this court shall, in view of the existing members of the society, conduct the elections in March by ensuring compliance of the requisite rules and regulations of the Chandigarh Olympic Association, Indian Olympic Association and National Sports Development Code of India, 2011. After completion of the elections, the administrator shall hand over the charge to the newly elected governing body. In view of the consensus ad idem (supra), this court deems it appropriate to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, to appoint an administrator, but not below the rank of an all India service officer, for conducting the elections of the society concerned. The administrator so appointed shall take over the charge of the society for the purpose of conducting elections and the office-bearers of the society shall hand over the entire record to the administrator. After successful completion of elections, the administrator is directed to hand over the charge of the society to the newly elected governing body,” stated the order.

Marred by controversies

The public embarrassment could have been avoided, had the COA focused on proper functioning instead of playing politics. Every elected house of the COA had been marred by controversies. The focus to grab the power was such that the last Chandigarh Games were conducted in 2005 and thereafter the association remained active only on political front. Despite promising to conduct the games, the last house failed to do so during its tenure.

Interestingly, the UT Sports Department has already imposed objections over COA for not submitting Utilisation Certificates (UC) for previously allotted funds. Apart from stopping further grant, the department didn’t take any action against the association, perhaps keeping in mind the interests of sports and sportspersons.