The Delhi High Court on Tuesday intensified its scrutiny of the Union Sports Ministry’s decision to recognize the Indian Pickleball Association (IPA) as the sport’s national federation, questioning why a 138-day-old entity was favored over an established organization with a decade of experience.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notices to the Union Sports Ministry and the IPA following an appeal by the All India Pickleball Association (AIPA). The court has directed the Centre to produce the “entire record” of its decision-making process by the next hearing on May 8.
The legal battle centers on how the IPA, incorporated only in November 2024, was granted official recognition as a National Sports Federation (NSF) on April 25, 2025. This recognition grants the IPA autonomy to regulate the sport nationally and makes it eligible for government financial grants.
The appellant, AIPA, which claims to have been promoting pickleball in India since 2008, challenged a previous single-judge order that upheld the ministry’s decision. AIPA alleges that the ministry violated the National Sports Code by granting the IPA sweeping exemptions from mandatory requirements.
During the proceedings, the bench raised pointed questions regarding the transparency of the ministry’s selection. The court noted that while AIPA had been operating for years, its application—submitted in October 2024—was effectively sidelined in favor of the much newer IPA.
“There are two applications. One fulfils the requirements, one does not… You considered the other application with grant of exemption. How is it permissible?” the bench asked the Centre’s counsel. “What can be more arbitrary than this?”
The court further sought clarification on whether the ministry ever formally communicated a rejection to AIPA. “Did you ever intimate to them that your application seeking recognition is rejected because you do not fulfil the requirements? Where is that communication?” the bench inquired.
Senior counsel representing AIPA argued that the ministry unjustly exempted the IPA from two critical criteria:
- Prior Existence: The requirement of having existed for at least three years at the time of applying.
- District Affiliation: The requirement of having 50 percent district units affiliated with State/UT units.
While the single judge had previously ruled that the Sports Code is “non-statutory” and allows for flexibility in “emerging sports,” the division bench appeared more concerned with the administrative process. The court also issued a notice on a separate appeal filed by the New Indian Pickleball Association against the same single-judge verdict.
In an interim direction, the High Court ordered that if the ministry considers renewing the IPA’s recognition before the matter is resolved, it must provide both AIPA and the New Indian Pickleball Association an opportunity for a personal hearing and written submissions.
The Centre’s counsel maintained that only one unit can be recognized as the National Sports Federation for a single sport, leading to the selection of the IPA. However, the court has demanded a full paper trail to verify if the process was handled fairly.
