The All India Tennis Association’s (AITA) Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) on Sunday is likely to witness a confrontation between the federation and court-appointed Administrator Justice (retd) Gita Mittal with the two sides deeply divided over the constitutional amendments that will determine the body’s future governance.
The document prepared by the AITA Executive Committee shows that while numerous technical changes suggested by Justice Mittal have been accepted, several major governance proposals have been rejected in favour of the federation’s own draft. The EC repeatedly argues that many of the Administrator’s recommendations either go beyond the National Sports Governance Act or are not required for statutory compliance.
While both seek to align AITA’s constitution with the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, they differ sharply on several key governance issues, including voting rights, the composition of the General Body and Executive Committee, athlete representation, tenure norms and powers of various committees. The battle lines have effectively been drawn even before Sunday’s meeting, where Gita Mittal won’t be present but the observers appointed by her will watch the proceedings.
It is learnt that both parties have agreed on the procedural part of the EGM after a meeting on Saturday. It has also been learnt that the petitioners had moved court seeking elections in AITA state bodies first but the court allowed the existing bodies to vote during election. The court has allowed AITA to vote clause by clause on the amendments proposed by the Administrator.
Justice Mittal’s draft proposes a governance model aimed at reducing the dominance of state associations by limiting each state Affiliate to a single vote in the General Body, increasing athlete representation and introducing several structural safeguards. In contrast, the AITA is not favouring many such proposals, arguing they go beyond the mandate of the Sports Governance Act and dilute the role of the state associations.
State votes at the heart of dispute
Perhaps the most contentious issue is voting rights. The Administrator has proposed reducing every state affiliate’s voting strength from two votes to one while expanding representation for Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit (SOMs). According to sources, AITA will oppose the move, arguing that state bodies represent millions of stakeholders and should continue to enjoy two votes each.
The AITA is also not in favour of giving voting rights to associate Affiliates and opposes making National Sports Board registration a pre-condition for voting, pointing out that the Board itself has not yet been constituted.
The two drafts also differ significantly on the structure of the Executive Committee. Justice Mittal has proposed five seats for Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit, a cap on representation from any one state and additional representation for “state associations of distinction.” AITA is in favour of retaining only two SOM seats while arguing that additional reserved seats and state caps have no basis in the Act and could undermine democratic representation.
The federation has also opposed several proposals concerning the Ethics Committee, Dispute Resolution Committee and Athletes’ Committee. AITA prefers retaining its own structures for the Ethics and Dispute Resolution Committees, arguing they are more consistent with the law and better suited to AITA’s functioning.
