AITA rejects Justice Gita Mittal panel’s recommendation for five SOM in AITA Executive Committee
AITA rejected Justice (Retd.) Gita Mittal’s panel recommendation for five SOMs in AITA’s 15-member Executive Committee and voted for two SOMs, with a Delhi High Court hearing on August 14.
- Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit (SOM) are athlete-representation seats meant to bring selected athletes into federation decision-making bodies.
- An Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) can ratify constitutional amendments, and member voting can then decide how Executive Committee (EC) seats and representation categories are set.
- The Delhi High Court can hear challenges to governance or election steps, and can set directions and timelines for compliance with the federation’s new constitution.
- AITA’s adopted model gives each affiliated state association two delegates, with two votes per delegate, instead of one consolidated vote per state association.
What happened: AITA rejects Justice (Retd.) Gita Mittal panel’s EC SOM recommendation
The All India Tennis Association (AITA) rejected a recommendation led by Justice (Retd.) Gita Mittal to include five Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit (SOM) in AITA’s 15-member Executive Committee (EC). AITA members voted on the EC composition at an Extraordinary General Meeting in New Delhi held to ratify constitutional amendments aligning AITA with the National Sports Governance Act.
At the Extraordinary General Meeting, AITA members voted for the following EC outcomes:
UPSC can use AITA’s EC composition dispute to connect statutory sports governance reform (National Sports Governance Act-linked constitutional amendments) with federation-level design choices. The case also illustrates how pending institutional parameters (like age limits) can affect time-bound election processes under court oversight.
Related dispatches
