The Delhi High Court on Tuesday reserved its order in a dispute between two bodies vying for the official status of India’s national pickleball federation.
The All India Pickleball Association (AIPA) has challenged the Union Sports Ministry’s recognition of the Indian Pickleball Association (IPA), calling the government’s decision arbitrary and unfair.
Hearing & Government’s Position
Justice Sachin Datta heard arguments from both sides before reserving his decision. Representing the Union government, counsel for the Sports Ministry argued there is no legal entitlement for AIPA to insist on recognition. He stressed that the National Sports Development Code (the Sports Code) does not mandate a formal hearing for such approvals. Counsel further pointed out: “After analysis, we found that on several parameters, the candidature of the respondent (IPA) was compliant, whereas the petitioner (AIPA) was not.”
The government also highlighted a broader complication: pickleball lacks an internationally recognized governing body. According to the Union’s submissions, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has yet to acknowledge any single global federation for pickleball, underscoring the novelty and fluidity of the sport’s administrative landscape.
AIPA’s Challenge
AIPA, which has been active in promoting and developing pickleball across India since 2008, contends that the newly formed IPA, just 138 days old at the time of recognition, has no substantive track record. In its petition, AIPA claims: “The IPA is attempting to fraudulently assume the role of a national sports federation for pickleball despite making no meaningful contribution to the sport’s development in India.”
The association accuses the Sports Ministry of “arbitrariness and lack of transparency,” pointing out that it was given no rationale or supporting documents to justify IPA’s recognition or to explain the rejection of AIPA’s own application. AIPA’s legal team urged the court to scrutinize the government records and determine whether due process was followed.
A Third Entity Enters The Fray
Complicating matters further, the Government of India informed the court about another intervening party: the New Indian Pickleball Association (NIPA), also known as the Indian Pickleball Association. Based in Bangalore and established in 2021, NIPA formally merged with AIPA last year. It now challenges the legitimacy of the newly recognized IPA and accuses it of unauthorized use of NIPA’s name, credentials, and legacy.
Stakes For Indian Pickleball Governance
AIPA has emphasized its commitment to “safeguarding the integrity of pickleball in India,” warning that any attempt to bypass established procedures threatens the sport’s governance. The association stressed its faith in the Indian judiciary, asserting that “the rule of law will ensure fairness and proper governance in pickleball.”
In closing, AIPA reiterated its dedication to the values of fair play, sportsmanship, and ethical administration, and urged the Sports Ministry to reconsider its decision “in the broader interest of pickleball and the Indian sporting community.”
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
