The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Vidarbha Hockey Association’s (VHA) appeal challenging the revocation of its membership from Hockey India. The Court reaffirmed the principle of "One-State-One-Unit," stating that only one association per state can be recognized under Indian Olympic Association (IOA) rules.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta heard the matter. After a brief hearing, the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the case.
Read also: Supreme Court Directs Recount of Supreme Court Bar Association Election Votes Amid Complaints
The VHA approached the Supreme Court under its writ jurisdiction, seeking recognition as an Associate Member of Hockey India and the IOA. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had upheld Hockey India’s decision to revoke VHA's membership.
During the hearing, Justice Kant inquired about the appropriateness of a writ court intervening in such matters. The VHA's lawyer argued that the association had been recognized as an Associate Member in 2013, and that its membership was arbitrarily revoked based on a clause that, according to him, did not apply. He also pointed out that Delhi had over 20 Associate Members, suggesting that similar flexibility should be applied.
Read also: Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Court as "Lower Court" is Against the Constitution
However, Justice Datta highlighted from the records that VHA was referencing associations like the Cricket Association and Kabaddi Federation, which do not fall under Olympic sports. Emphasizing the IOA’s regulations, Justice Datta clarified that the order in question revoked not only VHA's membership but also that of the Mumbai Hockey Association, reinforcing the rule of one recognized body per state.
“Hockey is an Olympic sport and under the Indian Olympic Association regulations, there can be only one association from one state,” the Supreme Court observed while rejecting the VHA’s challenge.
Justice Kant further pressed the petitioner’s lawyer on why the matter was being urgently listed during partial court working days.
Read also: Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response on Suggestions to Reform Sex Education and Real-Time
“June, 2024 order... you are filing SLP in May... you are getting it listed in vacation... please tell us what is that great urgency which has arisen in 3-4 days? 70% matters listed today are those which should have been before these working days or after... you people have forced us to sit a whole night to read...” commented Justice Kant.
In response, the petitioner’s counsel clarified that he had not requested the listing of the matter during partial court working days due to urgency.
Justice Datta also pointed out that the petitioner failed to counter certain aspects of the case at the High Court level by filing an affidavit.
“Then that's the end of the matter... you should have explained before the High Court, not before the Supreme Court for the first time,” said Justice Datta.
Eventually, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the case, effectively ending VHA’s challenge to its membership cancellation.
Case Title: VIDARBHA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION AND ORS. Versus HOCKEY INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 24236-2025
