New Delhi, Aug 20 (PTI) The All India Tennis Association (AITA) is enveloped in discord as separate groups within the federation have chosen different team managers for the upcoming Davis Cup tie against Switzerland, igniting an intense intra-federation power struggle. The AITA elections, held on September 28, 2024, have yet to see their results unveiled, pending a court directive due to a petition by former players Somdev Devvarman and Purav Raja, who contended that the Sports Code of 2011 was not adhered to.
Since then, the former Executive Committee has continued managing the sporting body’s activities. This composition was rocked by controversy when Anil Dhupar was relieved of his duties as Secretary General on June 27, and Sunder Iyer was appointed the interim secretary. Dhupar has since sought legal recourse, challenging his ousting, with the next court session scheduled for September 10. The ministry has refrained from intervening, calling it an internal affair of the AITA. As the newly enacted National Sports Governance Act 2025 comes into play, resolutions may soon be expected.
On August 9, Iyer communicated to the Executive Committee members that Sujit Roy, Secretary of the Tripura association, was designated to accompany the Indian Davis Cup team as manager in Biel, Switzerland, on September 12 and 13. This notification spurred a volley of email exchanges among the committee members discussing the appointment.
Dhupar, opposing the move and questioning the legality of the June 27 meeting that removed him, maintained it was traditional for the secretary general to act as the team manager, stating that AITA President Anil Jain had sanctioned his appointment. Contrary to Dhupar’s stance, Bengal Tennis Association (BTA) President Hironmoy Chatterjee noted that the Executive Committee retains the prerogative to nominate the manager and cited that Dhupar had previously traveled as a manager post-EC approval.
Chatterjee recommended that members discount Dhupar’s email. All Assam Tennis Association (AATA) President Raktim Saikia concurred. Nevertheless, AITA Vice President Navneet Sehgal advised upholding tradition over factional divides. Another Vice President, Chintan Parikh, pointed out Dhupar hadn’t secured court support, suggesting that bypassing EC endorsement was improper, and equated the secretary general’s manager role to a demotion.
Parikh emphasized all travel finances required EC authorization and warned that Dhupar shouldn’t expect AITA to cover his travel unless approved. AITA President Anil Jain, previously targeted by a no-confidence motion that was later withdrawn, contended Parikh’s remarks ignored Presidential authority as per AITA’s bylaws.
Jain cited Clause 8(a) to affirm that the President held final say over day-to-day operations, discrediting Iyer’s appointment without an EC election as unconstitutional due to the President's absence from the pivotal meeting. Reasserting his constitutional supervisory role, Jain posited all Vice President (Sports) decisions needed presidential concurrence.
Chatterjee, a key figure as VP Sports, contested Jain’s legitimacy, citing a breach of AITA’s requirement for candidates being part of a state association’s executive committee. He alleged Jain’s improper nomination by UPTA rendered him ineligible. This oversight was a belated revelation, according to Chatterjee, after discovering Jain was never part of UPTA's EC.
Additionally, it emerged that although AITA designated Anand Dubey as part of the team staff, his submission was later retracted post-list provision to the Sports Ministry.
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)