Pune: The interim executive committee of the All India Tennis Association (AITA) seems to have tied itself in a legal tangle, and in danger of being dissolved, after refusing to cooperate with the Administrator appointed by the Delhi High Court in April.While the interim committee, headed by president Chintan Parikh (Gujarat state association) and secretary Sunder Iyer (Maharashtra) welcomed the HC order initially, they subsequently filed an appeal, the grounds of which is not fully known.But a letter written by the Administrator, Justice (Retd.) Gitta Mittal, to the interim committee and the state associations gives a fair indication of her discontent over how things have panned out in recent weeks.In her letter dated June 17, seen by The Times of India, Mittal reminds Parikh and Co that the HC order of April 27 has directed them to “extend full cooperation” to her in overseeing the affairs of AITA, but “the officials at AITA have failed to render any assistance or cooperation” in fulfilling the HC’s mandate of amending the by-laws and constitution of the AITA and bringing them in line with the National Sports Act.As per the letter, during a meeting as early as May 1, Mittal had asked the interim committee to scrutinize the by-laws of the AITA and revert within one week with the details of the amendments necessary to make it Code compliant.However, “no submission was received to assist the Administrator in compliance with the directions” of the HC, the letter states.The Administrator had subsequently, with the help of a panel of experts, drafted a set of amendments and circulated it to the interim committee and all the state associations.The most damning part of Mittal’s letter, however, comes later when she warns the AITA interim committee that it “had no authority to authorize any person(s) to ‘finalize the draft Constitution with required amendment'”, and that “such action would tantamount to violation” of the HC order.Two different state association officials confirmed that the interim committee had indeed prepared a draft constitution with amendments and submitted it to the Union ministry of sports.“While the interim committee had proposed inclusion of four athletes in the executive committee as per the new national sports act, Mittal had suggested eight athletes,” one official said.Another state official said the primary difference stemmed from the strict interpretation of the National Sports Act by Mittal.“Most of the amendments have to do with age cap and tenure limits. The news sports code has a mention of 75 years (as upper age limit), but that is only when a member is serving on the board of the international body, the ITF in this case,” the official said.The interim committee’s appeal against the HC order has a built-in contradiction: it accepts one part, that which allowed the results of the 2024 September elections to be declared and thus enabled them to take charge; but refutes the other part, the appointment of the Administrator.What actually may have rattled the interim committee is Mittal’s order asking for financial records of the AITA for the past five years and that of the AITA Trust since its inception in 2001.Meanwhile, Somdev Devvarman and Purav Raja, the players who had filed the writ petition asking for the 2024 AITA elections to be declared illegal, have filed a counter-appeal asking for the interim committee to be dissolved in the light of violating the HC order.The arguments were completed on June 18, and the order has been reserved.
