In the All India Pickleball Association v. Union of India & Anr., the High Court rejects challenge by rival body to government’s recognition decision, affirming administrative discretion in NSF accreditation for pickleball.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld the Union Government’s decision to recognise the Indian Pickleball Association (IPA) as the National Sports Federation (NSF) for pickleball in India, dismissing a petition by the rival All India Pickleball Association (AIPA) that it was arbitrary and contrary to sports governance norms.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta delivered the judgement on 4 February 2026 in a writ petition challenging the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports’ recognition of IPA as the official NSF for the sport.
Background of the Dispute
Pickleball is a rapidly growing sport in India, and both bodies, the Indian Pickleball Association and the All India Pickleball Association, vied for recognition as the sport’s official governing body. The AIPA, which has been active in promoting the sport for years and is affiliated with the International Pickleball Federation, challenged the government’s decision taken in April 2025 to accord NSF status to the IPA.
The government’s decision made the newer IPA eligible for official status, including potential funding, regulatory authority over domestic pickleball governance, and representation in national and international forums. AIPA’s petition contended that IPA’s recognition was arbitrary since it was a recently formed body with limited organisational history and resources.
Legal Issue
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Centre’s decision to recognise the Indian Pickleball Association as the National Sports Federation for pickleball violated established norms of sports governance and whether it was arbitrary, illegal, or without jurisdiction. The AIPA argued that the Ministry failed to apply relevant criteria under the National Sports Development Code of India and that recognition should be accorded to an established body actively engaged in the sport’s development.
High Court’s Ruling
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Centre’s decision could not be said to be “ex-facie arbitrary” or suffering from legal infirmities. The Court underscored that the recognition of a National Sports Federation falls within the domain of the executive and that such decisions are entitled to a degree of judicial restraint.
Justice Datta noted that courts should not substitute their own view for the evaluation by domain experts in the Government unless there is demonstrable illegality or mala fide exercise of power. The High Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish that the decision was perverse or violative of applicable norms.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on established principles that recognition of sports federations involves expert and administrative determination. It indicated that judicial intervention is limited and should occur only where there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or violation of fundamental norms. The government’s decision to grant NSF status to the IPA was seen as an exercise of such administrative discretion, and the High Court found no valid ground to interfere.
The judgment reflects a broader judicial posture that recognises the executive’s role in sports administration, particularly in matters involving the growth of emerging sports and the allocation of recognition based on criteria that the government is best placed to assess.
Practical Implications
- Recognition Affirmed: The ruling solidifies IPA’s official status as the recognised National Sports Federation for pickleball in India. This allows IPA to govern the sport’s development nationally, shape competitions, and represent India in international platforms.
- Funding Eligibility: With NSF recognition upheld, IPA may obtain government funding and support under national sports promotion schemes, potentially accelerating pickleball’s grassroots expansion.
- Judicial Deference in Sports Governance: The decision affirms judicial restraint in reviewing administrative recognition decisions where no manifest illegality or arbitrary exercise of power is shown, especially in sports regulation.
- Precedential Value: The judgment may guide future NFT recognition disputes, particularly where emergent sports seek official status, and competing bodies contest government decisions based on organisational tenure or legacy.
The judgment adds clarity on how courts will approach challenges to government decisions recognising national sports bodies, affirming the executive’s discretion in accrediting federations and clarifying the scope of judicial review in sports governance disputes.
