The All India Tennis Association (AITA) is gearing up for a crucial showdown at its Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) scheduled for Sunday. The meeting is expected to witness a confrontation between the AITA federation and court-appointed Administrator Justice (retd) Gita Mittal, as both parties are at odds over constitutional amendments that will shape the future governance of the organization.

In preparation for the EGM, the AITA Executive Committee has drafted a document that accepts several technical changes proposed by Justice Mittal. However, it has rejected numerous major governance proposals, arguing that many of the Administrator’s recommendations either exceed the requirements of the National Sports Governance Act or are unnecessary for statutory compliance.

While both parties aim to align AITA’s constitution with the National Sports Governance Act 2025, they differ significantly on critical governance issues. These include voting rights, the composition of the General Body and Executive Committee, athlete representation, tenure norms, and the powers of various committees.

Notably, the most contentious issue revolves around voting rights. Justice Mittal has proposed reducing each state affiliate’s voting strength from two votes to one, while also expanding representation for Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit (SOMs). AITA is expected to oppose this move, arguing that state bodies represent millions of stakeholders and should retain their current voting power.

Additionally, the AITA is against granting voting rights to associate affiliates and opposes making National Sports Board registration a prerequisite for voting, emphasizing that the Board has yet to be constituted.

The two drafts also differ significantly regarding the structure of the Executive Committee. Justice Mittal's proposal includes five seats for Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit and limits representation from any one state. In contrast, AITA favors maintaining only two SOM seats and argues that additional reserved seats and state caps lack a basis in the Act, potentially undermining democratic representation.

As the EGM approaches, both parties appear to have reached an agreement on the procedural aspects of the meeting. However, the deep divisions over governance issues suggest that a resolution may be challenging. Observers appointed by Justice Mittal will be present to monitor the proceedings, as she will not attend the meeting herself.