Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Meghalaya Single Bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew held that the Indian Golf Union’s withdrawal of affiliation from a state-level society was unsustainable due to breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court set aside and quashed the impugned order and directed the concerned respondents to re-examine the matter afresh, ensuring adequate opportunity for the parties to present their respective cases. It further ordered that the status quo as of the date of the judgment be maintained until the matter is disposed of or further orders are passed by the respondents. The Court also directed that the re-examination be completed within two weeks from the date on which the parties are put to notice.

The petitioner challenged a letter dated 28 April 2025 issued by the Indian Golf Union (IGU), which withdrew the petitioner’s affiliation. The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the IGU, although an autonomous body, performs public functions and is therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction. It was asserted that the withdrawal was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice.

Also Read: Supreme Court Disappointed With Yet Another Allahabad HC Order | Says Ignoring Law On Sentence Suspension Defeats Right To Appeal

The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contested the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting that the IGU is a private registered society under the Societies Act, lacking pervasive state control or fiscal support for day-to-day operations. Recognition by the Government, they argued, does not make the IGU a “State” or “other authority,” nor does it render its functions as public in all respects.

The Court considered four issues: whether the IGU is a public authority performing public functions; whether withdrawal of affiliation constitutes a public function; whether there exists any arbitrable dispute; and whether the withdrawal was arbitrary, illegal, or in breach of natural justice.

The petitioner contended that the IGU, as the governing body for golf in India and a recognised National Sport Federation, performs state-like functions in the absence of legislation on golf. It was argued that IGU’s recognition is conditional upon compliance with the NSCI Code, 2011, and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has declared National Sports Federations as public authorities under the RTI Act. The petitioner further asserted that disaffiliation was affected without notice or access to materials relied upon, thereby impacting participation in state and national events and constituting a public function.

The petitioner argued that the matter was not arbitrable under Rule 66 of the IGU’s Memorandum of Association, as the petitioner, having been disaffiliated, was no longer a member and thus not bound by the arbitration clause, which applied only to disputes within an existing membership framework.

The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 argued that affiliation matters are internal, contractual issues between the IGU and its affiliates. They maintained that IGU’s recognition under the NSCI Code does not transform all its actions into public functions. They submitted that the available public functions are limited to selection of players and representation in international events, and disaffiliation falls under private law. They also cited the availability of alternative remedies, including arbitration and civil suits.

Respondent No. 1 submitted that affiliation and de-affiliation falls within the ambit of IGU’s public functions.

The Court recorded that "the IGU is a recognised National Federation responsible for regulating golf in India and amongst others, its mandate is to select team/golfers to represent India in National and International tournaments... and one of its functions is to grant affiliation to State Golf Associations." Referring to Clause 7 of the IGU Rules and Regulations, the Court noted the Council’s powers to grant or cancel affiliation.

The Court stated that "the fact that the IGU performs public functions is undisputed, and as such any of its actions notwithstanding the fact that it is a registered Society, which are considered to be public functions will be amenable to writ jurisdiction." Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that a private body discharging public functions can be subject to judicial review under Article 226.

On whether withdrawal of affiliation is a public function, the Court applied the ratio of the BCCI case, noting that "in its exercise of affiliation or disaffiliation, as it affects State Golf Associations... and the players, no doubt is a public function of the IGU." The Court clarified that not all IGU functions are public, but those affecting public interest or the sport as a whole must be examined contextually.

On arbitrability, the Court referred to Clause 66, holding that arbitration agreements survive the termination of the main contract, and "the writ petitioner would otherwise be bound by Regulation 66 of the IGU Rules and Regulations, and an arbitral tribunal on its own can rule on the question of whether there exists an arbitrable dispute."

Also Read: Punjab & Haryana HC Fines Litigant ₹50K For Forum Shopping | Calls Frivolous Contempt Plea Against IAS Officer A Gross Abuse Of Process

On natural justice, the Court found that "the disaffiliation... was effected without notice, or any opportunity of hearing being given... the petitioner at no point of time admittedly, was ever privy to" the materials relied upon. The Court concluded that "the impugned order suffers from a grievous violation of the principles of natural justice."

The Court accepted the concession of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to examine the matter afresh, directing that "the said respondents shall examine the matter afresh by giving the parties in contention adequate opportunity to present their respective cases." It set aside and quashed the impugned order, directed maintenance of status quo as of the date of judgment, and ordered that "the matter shall be dealt with most expeditiously... and disposed of within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date the parties are put to notice."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. K. Paul, Senior Advocate with Ms. K. Decruse, Advocate, Ms. S. Khatun, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with Ms. M. Myrchiang, Advocate; Mr. H. L. Shangreiso, Senior Advocate with Ms. M. Hajong, Advocate, Mr. H. R. Phalpher, Advocate; Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Advocate

Case Title: Meghalaya Golf Promoters Society vs. Union of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: MLHC:680

Case Number: WP(C) No. 154 of 2025

Bench: Justice H. S. Thangkhiew