Hockey India is currently under the rule of a Committee of Administrators (COA) on the orders of the Delhi High Court because of an alleged violation of the National Sports Code, and the international hockey federation (FIH) has said it is an example for other national associations to make sure their statutes are compliant with local laws.
Though Hockey India is under the rule of CoA, FIH’s chief executive officer Thierry Weil feels the court’s intervention does not affect its trust in India’s national association.
The Delhi High Court ruling came on a petition filed by former India player Aslam Sher Khan, who had challenged Indian Olympic Association (IOA) president Narinder Batra’s appointment as a life member of Hockey India.
The High Court held that HI’s appointment of Batra, who is also the FIH president and in a sense Thierry Weil’s boss, as its life member and Elena Norman as CEO were illegal, and thus the administrative setup of Hockey India was erroneous or illegal.
Asked what he thinks of the current situation with Hockey India, Thierry Weil said other associations should learn from this.
“It’s 100 per cent clear that every National Association has to make sure that its statutes are compliant with the sports code of the local authorities. Therefore, if this is not the case for Hockey India at the moment, then this has to happen,” FIH CEO Thierry Weil said in an exclusive interview with FIH.Hockey.
“However, this situation does not affect FIH’s full trust in Hockey India. Indeed, Hockey India has been and continues to be a key actor in the development of our sport, not only in the country but also for the world, as an outstanding organiser of numerous FIH events,” said Weil.
The FIH’s stand on the issue of appointment of CoA sounds a bit strange as international federations usually do not tolerate any kind of interference by local authorities in the functioning of its affiliated national sports associations.
It has led to the disqualification of many national bodies from participation in international events over interference in governance at the national level.
Comments
0 comment