Delhi High Court Refers Football Clubs' DSA Membership And Electoral Rights Disputes To Arbitrator
Shivani PS
17 Oct 2026 10:39 AM IST

The Delhi High Court has referred disputes involving six football clubs over disciplinary action affecting their membership and electoral rights in the Delhi Soccer Association to a previously appointed sole arbitrator.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla has asked the arbitrator to consider their requests for interim relief expeditiously, ahead of the association's elections on October 18, 2026.
The court observed, “Considering that the elections are scheduled for 18.10.2026, the learned Arbitrator is requested to take up the application for interim measures on an expeditious basis and make an endeavour to pass such appropriate order(s), in accordance with law, prior to the scheduled election.”
The six clubs are Ajmal FC, Goodwill FC, Hans Capital FC, Growing Stars SC, Ahbab FC and Mughal SC. They approached the high court in separate petitions against Anuj Gupta and others, challenging disciplinary action taken ahead of the elections.
The dispute follows an earlier petition filed by Ajmal FC. The club challenged a communication dated September 26, 2026, issued by Gupta, whose tenure as Delhi Soccer Association president was stated to have expired on March 19, 2026.
The communication purportedly expelled Ajmal FC indefinitely. It also purported to ban the second petitioner in that case from football-related activities for two years.
According to the earlier order, Ajmal FC's representatives argued that the disciplinary action had resulted in the club being omitted from the draft electoral list published on October 1, 2026. The elections are scheduled for October 18.
Ajmal FC approached the high court seeking urgent interim protection under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It argued that the disciplinary action had been taken without a show-cause notice or an opportunity of hearing. The club contended that this violated the association's constitution and applicable statutes.
It also argued that, without interim protection, it would be unlawfully excluded from the electoral process.
On October 7, 2026, the high court recorded an agreement between Ajmal FC and the second respondent to refer the dispute to arbitration. Finding a prima facie arbitration clause, the court appointed advocate Manisha Suri as the sole arbitrator.
The arbitration was to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre. The court directed that Ajmal FC's application for interim protection be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, allowing the arbitrator to consider the request.
In the present proceedings, Justice Shukla observed that the six petitions arose from substantially the same controversy. They concerned disciplinary action taken ahead of the elections and its consequences for the clubs' membership and electoral rights.
The court observed, “Accordingly, in the interest of justice and with a view to ensuring consistency in adjudication, the present disputes are also referred to the learned Arbitrator already appointed by this Court in the connected proceedings.”
The court directed that the six petitions seeking interim relief be treated as applications under Section 17 before the same arbitrator. The clubs must place the complete records of their proceedings before her.
With the elections scheduled for October 18, the court requested the arbitrator to take up the applications expeditiously. It asked her to endeavour to pass appropriate orders before the election.
Disposing of all six petitions, the court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. All rights, objections and contentions were left open for the arbitrator to consider.
For Petitioners (Ajmal FC and connected clubs): Senior Advocate Jagjit Singh; Advocates Swati Mishra, Chandresh Pratap, Rahul Khan and Abhijeet Singh.
For respondents (Anuj Gupta and others): Senior Advocate Jeevesh Nagrath; Advocates Arjun Mukherjee and Komal Kinger. Advocate Om Prakash appeared for Respondent No. 2.
