Rajasthan HC restores Chess Association election, holds sports body poll disputes must go to arbitration not writ

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has restored the disputed March 2026 election of the Rajasthan Chess Association and set aside a Single Judge’s order that had stayed the poll and appointed an administrator. A Division Bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain delivered the ruling on 16 April 2026.

The Court held that internal disputes over sports body elections must go to arbitration under the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Association) Act, 2005. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is “almost impermissible” in such matters, except in extraordinary circumstances.

The Rajasthan Chess Association is a state-level sports body registered under the Rajasthan Sports Act, 2005 — the statute that governs registration and regulation of sports associations in the state. Ashok Kumar Bhargava, the Honorary Secretary of the Association for the 2021-2025 term, was suspended by the erstwhile body. In August 2025 he filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking two things: a direction to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, to complete a pending inquiry into the Association, and a declaration that the election notice issued by the then President was null and void.

On 25 February 2026, the Single Judge modified an earlier stay and granted the respondents liberty to conduct elections. It also recorded that the Returning Officer could be changed “in case the existing Returning Officer consent for withdrawing himself”. The elections went ahead on 4 March 2026 with the same Returning Officer in place. The appellant in this appeal was elected Honorary Secretary.

On 13 March 2026, the Single Judge stayed the effect of the election and directed the Registrar to appoint an administrator for day-to-day functioning of the Association. The administrator was appointed on 24 March 2026. The newly elected body then filed a Special Appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952.

Senior Advocate Kamlakar Sharma, for the elected body, argued that Section 16 of the Act of 2005 channels any dispute about the constitution, management, election or affiliation of a sports association into conciliation and arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A writ petition was therefore not the correct route. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ram Chandra Choudhary v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd, 2026 INSC 347.

Counsel for Ashok Kumar Bhargava opposed the appeal on two grounds. First, a Special Appeal from an interim order in a writ petition was not maintainable. Second, the Returning Officer was the appellant’s real brother, which tainted the election with bias. He relied on Zee Telefilms Limited v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649.

The Division Bench answered two questions in favour of the appellant.

On maintainability, the bench held that a Special Appeal lies against an interim order of a Single Judge if that order decides substantial rights of a party. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, AIR 1981 SC 1786, it reiterated that “an interlocutory order, in order to be a judgment, must contain the traits and trappings of finality”. Here the Single Judge’s 13 March order did not just stay the election — it also directed the Registrar to appoint an administrator, who had actually taken charge on 24 March 2026. The order therefore granted “final relief, though the same is interlocutory in nature”. The Special Appeal was maintainable.

On the scope of Article 226, the bench turned to the Act of 2005. Section 16 requires disputes about a sports association’s constitution, management, election or affiliation to be resolved by conciliation and arbitration under the 1996 Arbitration Act. Section 35 provides an appeal to the Secretary to the Government, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, with a further revision lying to the High Court. In short, the statute builds a complete remedial ladder.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ram Chandra Choudhary, which held that disputes “pertaining purely to the internal management, governance or electoral processes of co-operative societies do not, as a matter of course, attract writ jurisdiction merely because such societies owe their incorporation to a statute”. It also applied Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada, AIR Online 2021 SC 6, which held that writ jurisdiction is generally not exercisable in arbitration matters.

In plain terms: once the legislature has built a specific adjudicatory channel, a party cannot leapfrog it by moving directly to the writ court. Exercise of Article 226 in such cases is “almost impermissible except in extraordinary circumstances”.

On the bias allegation — that the Returning Officer was the appellant’s real brother — the bench held that a writ court is not a fact-finding forum. Allegations of bias and favouritism must be pleaded specifically and proved on record, with an opportunity to the person accused to rebut them. The proper forum for those allegations, the Court said, is Section 16 of the Act of 2005.

The bench also examined the Single Judge’s earlier order dated 25 February 2026. That order had given the respondents liberty to conduct elections and said a new Returning Officer could be nominated only “in case the existing Returning officer consent for withdrawing himself”. There was no binding direction to replace the Returning Officer. The 13 March order, which staged the election on the premise that the existing Returning Officer should not have continued, was therefore founded on an incorrect reading of the earlier order.

The Division Bench allowed the D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 288/2026. The Single Judge’s order dated 13 March 2026, which had stayed the effect of the 4 March 2026 election and directed appointment of an administrator, was set aside and quashed. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case details