Karate Athletes Cannot Be Left to Suffer Due to Governance Disputes

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in Akshay Mahara v. Union of India & Ors. (LPA 448/2026), dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Indian karate athlete Akshay Mahara against an interlocutory order of the Single Judge, but remarked that athletes cannot be made to suffer due to unresolved governance issues and administrative inaction in the sport.

The Division Bench observed that the absence of a recognised National Sports Federation (NSF) for karate has adversely affected Indian athletes by depriving them of opportunities to participate in international competitions and directed the authorities to endeavour to provide an appropriate mechanism for selection and international entries until a recognised NSF is constituted.

The case arose when the appellant filed a writ petition seeking directions for a fair, transparent, time-bound, and internationally compliant selection process for Indian Karate athletes for the 2026 Asian Games and the 22nd Asian Senior Karate Championship.

The appellant contended that the entry period for karate events in the Asian Games was open from May to July 2026 and, unless urgent directions were issued before its closure, the writ petition would become substantially infructuous. He alleged that Indian karate athletes were once again being deprived of fair opportunities due to administrative inaction, unresolved governance disputes, and the ongoing absence of a recognised NSF.

The appellant relied upon the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports’ order dated February 23, 2026, directing the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) to constitute a transitory/ad hoc committee, in consultation with the World Karate Federation (WKF), to oversee karate affairs, including athlete selection and submission of entries for international competitions until a recognised NSF was established. He contended that no such committee had been constituted or operationalised. He further submitted that despite the Single Judge directing the respondents to provide a mechanism for international entries, no action was taken. Instead, names of Indian participants for the 22nd Asian Senior Karate Championship allegedly appeared on the WKF portal without any publicly disclosed selection criteria, trials, minutes of selection or consultation with the concerned authorities.

Before the Division Bench, the appellant challenged the Single Judge’s order dated May 29, 2026, contending that despite the time-sensitive nature of the dispute and the respondents’ statement that no names had been forwarded for the Asian Games because the relevant deadline had expired, the Single Judge did not grant any urgent protective relief and merely directed the respondents to file affidavits.

The respondents submitted that the ministry had acted to protect athletes’ interests by issuing the Ministry’s order directing the IOA to constitute an ad hoc committee. The IOA informed the Court that it had written to the WKF on February 26, 2026, but the WKF rejected the proposal and clarified that athletes selected through such a committee would not be recognised or permitted to participate in events conducted under its aegis. The IOA thereafter informed the Ministry and sought appropriate statutory action.

After examining the record, the Division Bench observed that the correspondence demonstrated that the IOA had acted pursuant to the Ministry’s directions by approaching WKF for the constitution of an ad hoc committee. It held that the documentary record established that the IOA had made every effort to secure the constitution of such a committee. However, WKF expressly opposed recognising any such committee and clarified that athletes selected through it would neither be recognised by the WKF nor permitted to participate in international events conducted under its aegis.

The Court further noted that the Single Judge had already recorded the respondents’ statement that no names had been forwarded for the Asian Games and had directed them to place affidavits on record addressing all relevant aspects. In these circumstances, the Division Bench held that the impugned order remained interlocutory in nature and did not constitute a “judgment” appealable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable.

Before parting with the matter, the Court observed that the continuing absence of a recognised NSF is detrimental to the development of karate and unfairly deprives athletes of international opportunities. Emphasising that athletes should not bear the consequences of governance disputes or administrative failures, it observed that the respondents should endeavor to establish an appropriate mechanism for athlete selection and international entries until a recognised NSF is constituted in India.