Boxing Federation of India rejects President’s suspension, cites constitution

The Boxing Federation of India has rejected the purported suspension of its President, citing constitutional provisions on meetings and office-bearer powers. It disputes the authority of a letter dated October 14 and says records support its account of constitution ratification

Hyderabad: The Boxing Federation of India (BFI) has rejected the purported suspension of its President, describing it as unauthorised and without constitutional basis. The federation has issued a point-by-point clarification in response to conflicting claims and documents circulating on the matter.

In its clarification, BFI cited provisions of its constitution relating to the convening of meetings and the authority of its office-bearers. It said the constitution and supporting records were being shared for reference.

---

Who can convene a meeting?

Under Clause 33(ii), a Special General Meeting (SGM) may be called by the President at his discretion or following a written request from two-thirds of the Executive Council members, BFI said. Such a request may be submitted to the President and/or the Secretary General, after which the President must ensure that the meeting is convened within 30 days.

Clause 26(iii) provides that the Secretary General convenes General Council and Executive Council meetings under the President’s advice. According to BFI, this provision does not grant the Secretary General unrestricted authority to convene an SGM independently.

Can the Secretary General independently suspend the President?

BFI said its constitution does not confer independent authority on the Secretary General to suspend the President. It therefore rejected the claim that a letter issued solely under the Secretary General’s authority could, by itself, suspend the incumbent President.

What do the approval and ratification records establish?

BFI said Pramod Kumar initially approved the draft constitution in his capacity as chairman and later participated in the proceedings, voting in favour of its ratification alongside other members and representatives of state associations.

The federation said it was sharing video footage and meeting records to support its account of Kumar’s participation and approval.

BFI’s position on the letter dated October 14

According to BFI, Pramod Kumar had already been suspended from exercising the functions of Secretary General before issuing the purported suspension letter dated October 14. The federation argued that he therefore lacked the authority to issue the communication on its behalf.

BFI reiterated that it considered the purported suspension of its President unauthorised and unsupported by the constitution. It urged members and the media to assess the competing claims against the constitution, the suspension order and the recorded proceedings being circulated.