AICF’s Constitutional Battle: President and Secretary Call Separate Meetings, Competing Amendments Emerge
The war is now out in the open between the two top administrators of Indian chess, the game of kings and queens.
At a time when World Chess Champion and Indian Grandmaster (GM) D. Gukesh is gearing up to defend his title against challenger and Uzbekistan’s GM Javokhir Sindarov later this month, an internal battle has broken out in the All India Chess Federation (AICF).
The two top AICF officials have called for Special General Body Meetings (SGBMs) to be held within a span of three days at two different locations.
AICF Secretary Dev A. Patel has called an SGBM on November 14, 2026, in Ahmedabad, while President Nitin Narang’s meeting is scheduled for November 17 in Chandigarh.
The two meetings are significant because they will consider competing proposals to amend the AICF Constitution and Bye-laws.
While the proposal circulated along with the Secretary’s notice largely retains the existing organisational structure, the President’s draft seeks to introduce a different governance model, including the removal of the elected Secretary and the appointment of a salaried Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
The unusual development has raised questions about the relationship between the two office-bearers, the authority under which the meetings have been convened and, more importantly, which governance model the State Associations will support.
Two meetings, two routes to constitutional change
Patel’s October 30 notice states that he had received requisitions from more than 10 permanent member State Associations under Clauses 11 and 17 of the AICF Constitution.
The agenda is not confined to constitutional amendments.
It includes the appointment of the President of FIDE Asian Zone 3.7; issues concerning State Associations; the interim appointments made by the President to the posts of Treasurer and Vice-President; approval of the minutes of earlier meetings; announcement of fresh AICF elections; approval of the form for inviting applications for the Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit (SOM) roster; appointment of an Electoral Officer; and discussion of the Federation’s books of accounts, audit and financial statements.
The notice also lists the President’s emergency orders for discussion and decision.
Clause 11 of the AICF Constitution provides for a Special General Body Meeting to be called on a written requisition by at least 10 Federation members, among other routes. Clause 17 deals with constitutional amendments and provides for their adoption through a Special Resolution.
The Secretary’s notice says the resolutions proposed by the requisitioning associations are contained in their email dated October 29.
Narang, meanwhile, has called a separate meeting for November 17 to consider his proposed amendments.
His stated position is that more than one-fourth of the AICF members had requested him to convene the meeting to align the Constitution and Bye-laws with the National Sports Governance Act, 2025.
Thus, the AICF General Body is being asked to consider two sets of constitutional changes within a span of three days.
The Secretary stays in one proposal, disappears in the other
The most fundamental difference between the two proposals concerns the position of the Secretary.
The amendments proposed by the requisitioning State Associations retain an elected Secretary as an office-bearer and an important administrative functionary. The proposal also retains four Vice-Presidents and four Joint Secretaries, alongside the President and Treasurer.
It envisages a five-member Emergency Committee comprising the President, Secretary, Treasurer, the seniormost Vice-President and the seniormost Joint Secretary. This provides for a collective mechanism to deal with emergencies, with the action taken to be reported to the appropriate AICF body for ratification.
The President’s proposal, on the other hand, removes the elected Secretary/Secretary General from the list of office-bearers.
In its place comes a full-time salaried CEO, designated as “CEO/Secretary General”.
The CEO will head the administration and manage the day-to-day affairs of the Federation, including the Secretariat, staff, national championships, selections, FIDE registrations, ratings, transfers and the administration of arbiters and trainers.
The CEO will not be elected. The Executive Committee will appoint the person on the recommendation of a three-member search committee comprising the President, Treasurer and one SOM representative. The Executive Committee will also determine the CEO’s contractual terms, remuneration and financial limits and can remove the CEO in accordance with the contract.
The CEO will attend Executive Committee meetings but will not have voting rights in either the General Body or the Executive Committee.
This is not merely a change in designation. It represents a shift from an elected office-bearer heading the administration to a salaried professional appointed through a process in which the President has a direct role.
President’s proposal and the question of power
Narang’s proposed amendments also define the President’s role in the Federation’s internal and external affairs.
The President will have a casting vote in the Executive Committee in the event of a tie, except in elections.
The President, or a nominee, will represent the AICF in its relations with FIDE. The President or CEO will represent the Federation before the Government and the National Sports Board.
Narang has maintained that the proposed amendments do not make the President the executive head of the Federation or give the office unrestricted powers. The Executive Committee continues to retain substantial authority, including over the appointment and removal of the CEO, expenditure and the functioning of the Federation.
However, taken together, the President’s role in the appointment process, external representation, chairing of the Executive Committee and emergency decision-making could considerably enhance the influence of the office.
Legal views differ on scrapping the Secretary’s post
Defending the proposal to replace the elected Secretary with an appointed CEO, Narang told this writer: “I understand the concern about the Secretary’s post, so let me explain. Section 4(1)(g) of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 says every national sports body shall have “a Secretary General who shall be the head of administration responsible for carrying out all decisions of the Executive Committee and the General Body.” Section 2(y) of the Act defines “Secretary General” to mean “the Secretary General or the Secretary of a National Sports Body.””
He added: “The proviso to Section 4(1)(g) states: “Provided that where the International Charters and Statutes provide for a full-time head of administration, by whatever name called, there shall not be an elected post of the head of administration.”
“FIDE (International Chess Federation) has a full-time, appointed head of administration. So under the law, AICF cannot keep an elected Secretary as its head of administration. That is why the draft provides for an appointed CEO/Secretary General to run the day-to-day work. He will attend Executive Committee meetings but will not vote. The elected Executive Committee will continue to take the decisions and set the direction. This is the same model FIDE follows,” Narang explained.
However, legal opinion on the issue is not necessarily settled by the President’s interpretation of the Act and FIDE’s administrative structure.
Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner of KS Legal Associates, Mumbai, said: “The crucial question is whether the FIDE statutes actually mandate such an arrangement for national federations. There is a difference between FIDE having a professional administrative structure and requiring every affiliated national federation to adopt the same,”
She added: “The Act itself distinguishes between the President as the head of the federation, the Secretary General as its administrative head and the Executive Committee as its collective decision making body. These distinctions cannot be rendered meaningless through constitutional amendments,”
“In my opinion, professionalising AICF’s administration may be a legitimate and desirable reform. However, professionalisation cannot become a pretext for centralisation of power. The legality of the proposal must be tested against the actual FIDE provisions, the parent legislation and the existing AICF Constitution, rather than the interpretation advanced by the incumbent President,” she said.
“The objective of sports governance reform should be institutional accountability and transparency, not the redistribution of power in favour of an individual,” Chandwani added.
State Associations face a crucial choice
The November 14 meeting could, therefore, become important not only because of the amendments proposed by the requisitioning associations but also because of its possible implications for the President’s November 17 meeting.
A former AICF official told this writer: “Officials of the state affiliates will not generally boycott the meeting called by the Secretary. The President can also attend the meeting and ask the members to deliberate and decide on his proposals. If the members pass the amendments proposed in the notice circulated by Patel, then the other General Body meeting can become infructuous,”
That is an assessment of what could happen rather than an automatic legal consequence.
On the question of whether AICF’s State affiliates, too, must follow the proposed pattern — if AICF follows the FIDE model- Narang said: “The State and District Associations can retain their secretaries. AICF is introducing a professional CEO/Secretary General to meet its governance requirements and comply with law.”
Continuing further, he said: “The two are entirely different matters. The important distinction is between holding an elected post and running the day-to-day affairs. Under the new governance requirements, day-to-day administration is to be handled by a full time, non-elected professional.”
Financial transparency remains an issue
Amid the constitutional contest, the question of financial transparency also deserves attention.
The AICF website makes available annual audited accounts only up to 2022-23, according to the records presently available there.
Further, chess circles are also agitated over the alleged payment of more than Rs. 88.79 lakh as legal fees to a law firm from funds contributed by players under different heads.
The Secretary’s November 14 agenda itself includes a discussion of the Federation’s books of accounts, audit, financial reports and statements.
The absence of later audited accounts from the website does not, by itself, establish whether the accounts have been prepared, approved or filed with the Registrar of Societies.
However, the issue needs clarification, particularly when the Federation is considering a new administrative structure that Narang says will entail additional compliance expenditure.
The President has acknowledged that the National Sports Governance Act will bring costs such as those of a full-time professional CEO, a small secretariat, independent elections and various committees. He has maintained that the expenditure is manageable and necessary for recognition and compliance.
The General Body would, therefore, also need to examine the financial implications of the proposed changes and the Federation’s existing financial disclosures.
It should also be noted that the full time salaried CEO may replace the existing Chief Operating Officer (COO) position which is a full time salaried position to take care of day-to-day operations.
Interestingly, another administrative detail that has not escaped notice. The letterhead on which the President’s order dated 27.10.2026 was issued carries the name of Dharmendra Kumar as Treasurer, even though Kumar had resigned from the post on October 1, 2026, following the developments surrounding the Delhi High Court proceedings.
Which way will the General Body move?
The two meetings have turned what was initially a debate over the removal of the elected Secretary into a wider contest over the future structure of Indian chess administration.
The President argues that the proposed changes are necessary to bring the AICF in line with the National Sports Governance Act and FIDE’s model. The alternative proposal from the requisitioning State Associations retains the elected Secretary and provides for the collective handling of emergencies.
The question now is whether the General Body will endorse one of the two approaches, seek a compromise or allow the constitutional dispute to deepen.
In chess, a player may have several possible moves, but the consequences of each move become clear only after it is played. The AICF’s November meetings could determine what the Federation’s governance structure will look like for years to come.
(Venkatachari Jagannathan can be reached at venkatacharijagannathan@gmail.
