Chess in India

[Kevin Thurlow]

I just received this interesting email. There's a lot of it. I have no idea of the accuracy of any of it. The 2700 is a number not a rating! One of the attachments does suggest that the players were warned before playing the "rival" event. I thought the "Chess Federation Inc" might be Stan Vaughan's organisation, but I think his was "World Chess Federation".

"Subject: Appeal for help from chess community for 2700 Indian chess players

Dear Chess Friends

Please have a look at the wrongdoings of Indian chess federation as they have debarred 2700 Indian chess players from Indian tournaments and FIDE has removed the ratings of around 150 FIDE rated Indian chess players from FIDE website. The crime was that these players only played chess tournaments of their choice. You will be amused to see how FIDE justifies this! FIDE observed that the matter is not receivable as the applicant is not a member of the Indian chess federation, FIDE is very much aware that AICF has cancelled the registration of all these players and as they will not be the members of registered body their appeal will not be entertained. Is this not a Joke?

As there is no option left, and our faith in FIDE ethics is shattered, we appeal to world chess community to kindly go through the issue (my appeal, FIDE ethics commission judgement and other documents attached) and help us, Otherwise it may happen to you in future, because whenever you remain a silent spectator when injustice is being done to your neighbor, automatically you will be the next victim.


Karun Duggal

Former Coach: Indian Youth Chess Team (2009 Asians)
National Champion (National Cities Chess Tournament 2002)
CBSE National Chess Observer 2009
Delhi state Rapid Champion 2006, 2009
Delhi University Chess Coach since year 1998
Former Joint secretary( Delhi chess association) for 7 years
"

[Kevin Thurlow]

If someone can format that better, feel free...

[Roger de Coverly]

As a summary, the Indian Chess Federation insists that all chess players and events in India are registered with it. Where have I heard that one before? Furthermore it goes beyond that in asserting control over events not registered with it, by forbidding registered players to take part in these additional events. It reinforces its control by removing players who have taken part in such events from the International rating list, and it would appear, banning them from domestic events that it runs. By many standards, that constitutes misuse of a monopoly position, but the Indian courts and the FIDE ethics commission have not been persuaded to see it that way.

Such practices are not unknown in the UK, the English table tennis association will bar members if they take part in "unofficial" leagues.

[Stewart Reuben]

Since you ask, here are communications I have seen recently. There have been many more. I too was unable to copy the one above from the Indian court.
The AICF allows the players back in a year after offering an apology and giving them all their prize mony won in the 'unlawful' events. I believe thse include the First Saturday Tournaments in Budapest.

His Excellency Dated : 12th November 2011
Kirsan Illumzhinov
President
FIDE
“All I Want To Do Is Play Chess” Bobby Fischer

The famous quote from an immortal world champion speaks about the passion of a player with his game. We the lesser humans may not have such passion with the game but still all the amateur players worldwide crave to become a prominent figure in chess. Every amateur player has a dream to become something in chess. The path to become something, to become a champion starts from the beginning.

It starts at home, school or similar informal setups, where amateurs meet and play practice games to improve their chess skills. Afterwards they turn their sights on the local tournaments, club level chess where they have an exposure with polished amateurs who are also seasoned players. Nobody will have a doubt that such tournaments are very useful to shape the careers of up & coming chess generation. This helps our budding amateur to learn the practical aspects of tournament play, and then he turns his attention to state, national or FIDE rating tournaments i.e. competitive chess.

What will happen to the game of chess if a national chess federation starts banning the players for playing in all those open (club level) tournaments which are not recognized by it, if an affiliated unit of FIDE starts threatening players from playing in such tournaments because organizers do not give fees to it for conducting chess tournaments?

The Indian Chess Federation (AICF), an affiliate of FIDE is exactly doing that. It threatens virtual boycott of anyone who plays chess tournaments not recognized by them and has removed FIDE ratings and nationality of around 151 Indian FIDE rated chess players from FIDE website in order to punish them. It means that if some group of players needs to play the game of chess at home or play some practice tournament, they should obtain the recognition of AICF or else their ratings will be snatched and they will be denied participation in state selection trials and all FIDE Rating and official tournaments of AICF. And at the same time FIDE is maintaining the ratings of thousands of Indian chess players who have left chess since many years.

Indian chess players have a feeling that FIDE is also indulged in this anti chess activity as it has supported the lowly deeds of AICF by removing ratings of 151 players without going through full background of the case. Over 2500 players approximately 30% of total Indian chess players (8,000 as projected by AICF) are banned from playing in AICF events as they played in unauthorized events as per the observations of AICF. The Warning on AICF’s website is self explanatory
AICF indulges in arm twisting and humiliation of players by many other means. It clearly instructs players to give written apology and deposit all the prize money which these players have won (is it a fine or bribe?) in allegedly illegal/unauthorized tournaments. It has cancelled their registration & instructed them to go through a one year cooling off period (they cannot play any tournament for one year) in order to get their FIDE ratings back , to play in FIDE rating chess events and to re-register themselves with AICF.

AICF has also instructed employers of such players to take disciplinary action for their participation in such tournaments.

The player’s community had an impression that FIDE believes in growth and development of Chess. As per the FIDE ethics commission as projected on the website, it is clearly stated that FIDE is concerned exclusively with chess activities, and is democratically established and bases itself on the principles of equal rights of its members. FIDE is a nonprofit making organization. It rejects discriminatory treatment for national, political, racial, social or religious reasons or on account of gender. It observes strict neutrality in the internal affairs of the national chess federations.

Then why it is supporting the lowly cause of demotion of the game of chess by All India Chess Federation under the guise of penalizing players who plays in the tournaments not recognized by them? Does it make sense to punish any chess player for playing chess?

We submit that in democratic setup these types of actions are against the objectives of FIDE. AICF is recognized by FIDE for promotion of game and fair administration. Demanding prize money won by players, removing rating by virtue of its dominating position granted through reorganization with FIDE, compelling players to keep away from chess for one year and seeking apology for freely playing chess is highly dictatorial and it will spoil career of hundreds of chess players, which is against the spirit of FIDE.

We most respectfully express our utmost faith in Gens Una Sumus (we are one family). We also express our faith in your authority and undisputed leadership in chess world. Therefore we request you to instruct AICF not to indulge in anti chess activities but promote chess in conformity with FIDE otherwise such actions usually have a snowball effect and results in a major controversy.

The Indian high court has taken very stern view in this regard and has ordered a probe in the AICF’s undemocratic activities through referring the matter to Competition commission of India. For your ready reference we enclose a copy of judgment given by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 08.11.11 and letters written by AICF demanding prize money won by players.

Karun Duggal Copy to: FIDE presidential Board
Former Coach: Indian Youth Chess Team (2009 Asians)
National Champion (National Cities Chess Tournament 2002)
Delhi state Rapid Champion 2006, 2009
Delhi University Chess Coach since year 1998

Dear Chess Friends

Please have a look at the wrongdoings of Indian chess federation as they have debarred 2700 Indian chess players from Indian tournaments and FIDE has removed the ratings of around 150 FIDE rated Indian chess players from FIDE website. The crime was that these players only played chess tournaments of their choice. You will be amused to see how FIDE justifies this! FIDE observed that the matter is not receivable as the applicant is not a member of the Indian chess federation, FIDE is very much aware that AICF has cancelled the registration of all these players and as they will not be the members of registered body their appeal will not be entertained. Is this not a Joke?

As there is no option left, and our faith in FIDE ethics is shattered, we appeal to world chess community to kindly go through the issue (my appeal, FIDE ethics commission judgement and other documents attached) and help us, Otherwise it may happen to you in future, because whenever you remain a silent spectator when injustice is being done to your neighbor, automatically you will be the next victim.

Karun Duggal

Abstracts of the observation and directions of Delhi High Court Date of Decision: 04.11.2011 % W.P.(C) 5770/2011
HEMANT SHARMA AND ORS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct respondent no.1 i.e. UOI to the Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, to take appropriate steps so that respondent no.2 i.e. All India Chess Federation does not ban/threaten to ban chess players, associating themselves with other chess associations.
3. The submission of the petitioner is that respondent no.1 has issued the revised guidelines for assistance to National Sports Federation (NSF). Under these guidelines, it is provided that National Sports Federations shall be fully responsible and accountable for the overall management, direction, control, regulation, promotion, development and sponsorship of the discipline for which they are recognized by the concerned International Federation.
4. Ms. Palli, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the FIDE has laid down the moral principles of FIDE which are applicable to FIDE for non-FIDE chess competitions. The second principle laid down is that FIDE reaffirms its commitment to the right to play chess and opposes all actions that would hinder that right. Ms. Palli further submits that under the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, it is the obligation of respondent no.2 to protect the right of the players to play chess and to oppose all organized actions which would hinder that right of the petitioners to play chess
5. The procedure for suspension/withdrawal of recommendation is contained in Annexure III of the said guidelines. One of the reasons for which the recommendation may be withdrawn by respondent no.1, in respect of NSF, is that where in the judgment of the Government of India, the federation is not functioning in the best interest of development of sports for which the federation was granted recognition.
6. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent no.2 prohibits chess players who are registered with it from playing in any tournament, or participating in any competition of chess, if such a tournament/competition is organized by an association/federation or other body which does not have the approval of respondent no.2. Ms. Palli submits that the said conduct of respondent no.2 is highly monopolistic and anti-competitive. Respondent no.2 being the internationally recognized sports federation is exploiting its dominant position to impose such unreasonable restrictions on the rights of the players, by issuing caution notices and by claiming that such conduct of the players is etrimental to the interest of respondent no.2. In this respect, Ms. Palli has drawn my attention to the caution notice displayed by respondent no.2 on its website. The said caution notice reads:-
Caution “This is to inform all chess players/organizers/officials that any chess event organized under the banner of “Chess Association of India” is not recognized by the All India Chess Federation.
A reminder of our earlier circular CAUTION
A set of disgruntled elements have announced that they have formed a Chess Association as rivals to the All India Chess Federation. In their mails the Chess Association of India has announced that, with the permission of Chess Federation Inc ( a rival to FIDE) they will organize an open tournament at Delhi from 23rd Dec weith a Prize fund of Rs.15 lakhs. All India Chess Federation cautions all chess players affiliated to us not to participate in these tournaments or any other tournament to be organized by Chess Association of India in future as their events are not recognized by All India Chess Federation and as such not authorized by AICF. This is to further remind all AICF registered players that you have signed a declaration in the players registration form, which we quote for your ready reference. “I also declare that I will not participate in any unauthorized tournament/championship.” By playing in the tournaments conducted by Chess Association of India, the registered players of AICF will attract disciplinary action and hence are cautioned against playing in the tournaments to be organized by the rival body. – Published on 09th December, 2009.”
Respondent no.2 in its communication dated 10.05.2011 has, interalia, stated as follows:-
“The players who are registered with All India Chess Federation are bound by the Rules and Regulations of the Federation. Those players who want to be part of the Federation have to follow these rules. As per the Rules of the Federation no player can participate in unauthorized/illegal tournaments which are not recognized or approved by the Federation. This fact is known to all the players and the same is posted on our website. Some former office bearers of the Federation who have been expelled /suspended for their acts of omissions and commissions have floated a new body called the “Chess Association of India” claiming themselves to be a parallel body to the All India Chess Federation. They are organizing tournaments and also naming some of these tournaments as National Championships. This according to us is a criminal act as the players are duped that the certificates issued by them is valid for employment opportunities in government and public sector undertakings.
11. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that there is no challenge by the petitioner to the constitutional byelaws of respondent no.2 in the present petition and even if such a challenge were to be raised, this is not the right forum. She also submits that respondent no.1 does not retain any supervisory jurisdiction over respondent no.2. Consequently, this Court cannot issue any direction to respondent No.1, as prayed for in this petition. She further submits that respondent no.2 is not even located within the jurisdiction of this Court and, even according to the petitioner, no relief is directed against respondent No.2 directly. The prayer made in the petition is directed only against respondent no.1, though it affects respondent no.2 as well.
13. However, in my view, the matter does not end there. Prima facie, it appears to me that the endeavour of respondent no.2 appears to be to exercise its monopolistic and dominant position to stifle the growth of any other association of chess players, by threatening the chess players registered with it, with disciplinary action/expulsion and a virtual boycott in case they participate in tournaments organized by such other associations. The policy and conduct of respondent No.2 may, therefore, call for examination by the Competition Commission constituted under the Competition Act, 2002.
16. The issue is not about the recognition of respondent no.2 as the NSF. The issue is with regard to the right of the players of chess to form another association and to organize tournaments in the country without the involvement of or the blessings of respondent No.2. The issue is with regard to the right of the players to freely participate in tournaments so organized, without the fear of being hounded by respondent no.2 and without the fear of the Sword of Damocles falling on their heads, if they participate in such so-called illegal or unauthorized tournaments.
17. Respondent no.2 has been given the mandate to select the players who would eventually be entitled to participate in international tournaments. Respondent no.2 also flexes its muscles by instructing FIDE to remove the ranking of the chess players who participate in unauthorized or illegal tournaments. Therefore the dependence of all players on respondent no. 2 for registration cannot be overemphasized.
18. I have put it to learned counsel for respondent no.2 as to why this Court should not refer the constitutional provisions, rules and regulations and the aforesaid conduct and practice of respondent no.2 for investigation and inquiry by the Competition Commission constituted under the Competition Act, 2002, as I am inclined to do so.
19. Ms. Manmeet Arora, submits that respondent no. 2 NSF is not covered by the Competition Act. She further submits that the power to make a reference under Section 19(1)(b) of the Competition Act is vested with the Central Government, or the State Government or the statutory authority. She submits that the expression “statutory authority” is defined in Section 2(w) of the Act to mean any authority, board, corporation, council, institute, university or any other body corporate established by or under any Central, State or Provincial Act for the purposes of regulating production or supply of goods or provision of any services or markets therefor or any matter connected therewith or incidental thereto. She submits that this Court is not a statutory authority as it is constituted under the Constitution of India.
20. She further submits that the reference can be made by a statutory authority under Section 21 of the Act. This Section postulates that where the statutory authority, during the course of any proceedings before it, is inclined to make any decision which would be contrary to the provisions of the Competition Act, such authority may make a reference to the Competition Commission. Upon receipt of such reference, the Competition Commission is required to give its opinion and to send the same to the statutory authority.

She submits that it is open to the petitioner to approach the Competition Commission on its own and this Court should not, therefore, make a reference to the Commission under Article 226 of the Constitution. She also relies on T.C.Thangaraj; P.Suganthi & Anr Vs. V. Engammal & Ors., 2011(8) Scale 120, wherein the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court directing investigation by the CBI in a case where the allegation was that, since one of the accused was a police officer, the local police was not conducting the investigation properly.
The Supreme Court held that if the High Court found that the investigation was not being completed because one of the accused was an Inspector of Police, the High Court could have directed the Superintendent of Police to entrust the investigation to an officer, senior in rank to the Inspector of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C and not to the CBI.
The Supreme Court also referred to Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C which provides a check on the performance by the police of their duties, and where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct the Police to carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.
22. In her rejoinder, learned counsel has drawn my attention to Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, which defines the expression `enterprise. to mean “a person or a department of the Government, who or which is, or has been, engaged in any activity, relating to the production, storage, supply, distribution, acquisition or control of articles or goods, or the provision of services, of any kind, or in investment, or in the business of acquiring, holding, underwriting or dealing with shares, debentures or other securities of any other body corporate, either directly or through one or more of its units or divisions or subsidiaries, whether such unit or division or subsidiary is located at the same place where the enterprise is located or at a different place or at different places, but does not include any activity of the Government relatable to the sovereign functions of the Government including all activities carried on by the departments of the Central Government dealing with atomic energy, currency, defence and space.”
23. The expression „activity. has been defined to include profession or occupation. Respondent no.2, admittedly, charges a registration fee on an annual basis. She submits that respondent no.2 also charges fee from players to participate in tournaments organised by it. 24. Section 2(f) defines the expression „consumer. to, inter alia, mean, ”any person who (i)...... (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person whether such hiring or availing of services is for any commercial purpose or for personal use;”
25. It is argued that when the departments of the government, engaged in, inter alia, provision of services of any kind are covered by the expression „enterprise., certainly respondent No.2 cannot escape from the scope of that expression. It is argued that respondent No.2 itself claims to be rendering service to the players registered with it for a charge, and the petitioners are the consumers of the said services. Respondent No. 2, admittedly, charges a registration fee on an annual basis. She submits that respondent No. 2 also charges fee from players to participate in tournaments organized by it. It is, therefore, argued that respondent No.2 is covered under the Competition Commission Act, 2002. She further submits that the caution that the High Court needs to exercise, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, while referring a case for investigation to the Competition Commission is not comparable to the situation where the High Court seeks to substitute the CBI as the investigating agency. This is because the said direction of the Court seeks to substitute the normal investigating agency i.e the local police concerned with the CBI, and that too without the concurrence of the State Government. She submits that under Section 19 of the Competition Act, the power of the Commission to cause an investigation can be exercised suo moto or upon information being received from any person, consumer or their association or trade association. When any person or consumer can seek investigation of a case by the CCI, certainly this Court, in appropriate cases, can ask the CCI to look into a case.
26. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, it appears to me that respondent no.2 is rendering services to the petitioners and to all others who are registered with it as chess players. The responsibilities of respondent no.2 as an NSF are set out in the guidelines issued by respondent no.1, some of which have already been referred to earlier. Admittedly, respondent no.2 organises chess tournaments and provides technical support and expertise for conduct of such chess tournaments. That, in my prima facie view, would constitute service rendered by respondent no.2 to the players who are registered with it. Such service is being rendered for a consideration received from the players, as is evident from the registration form, a copy whereof has been filed on record by respondent no.2. It is also borne by respondent No.1 for the benefit of all chess players who provides grants to respondent No.2.
27. Respondent no.2, prima facie, would also fall within the expression `enterprise. as used in the Act which is very widely worded to even include a person or a department of the government rendering services “of any kind” and excludes only those activities of the government which are relatable to sovereign functions of the government and all activities carried out by the departments of the Central Government dealing with atomic energy, currency, defence and space. Respondent no.2 does not fall in any of the said exceptions.
28. As aforesaid, it is engaged in rendering services of a kind. The reliance on the Statements and Objects and Reasons of the Competition Act by respondent no.2 is also of no avail in view of the express provisions contained in the said Act which do not show that the provisions of the said Act are applicable only to commercial establishments who provide goods or render services.
Since the meaning of the expression enterprise., „service. and „consumer. as used in the Competition Act is very clear, I am not inclined to accept the submission of respondent no.2 founded upon a reading of the Statement of Object and Reasons and Preamble to the Competition Act, 2002.
30. Therefore, one of the purposes of the said Act is to prevent practices having adverse effect on competition. The said practice need not necessarily be related to trade or commerce.
31. The definition of the expression „enterprise. as used in the Competition Act read with the definition of “service” thereof, in my view, clearly shows that the respondent no.2 is an enterprise which is covered by the said provisions. The allegation against respondent no.2 is that respondent no.2, by virtue of its agreement with the petitioners, is seeking to control the provision of services which is causing adverse effect on competition within India, in asmuch, as, the chess players registered with respondent no.2 are not free to form another association or to organize tournaments and participate therein, without facing the consequence of losing their registration with respondent no.2 which is the nationally recognized sports federation for the sports of chess. The allegation also is that respondent no.2 is abusing its dominant position as the NSF.
32. The submission of learned counsel for respondent no.2 is that, in terms of its mandate, respondent no.2 is regulating the sport of chess by preventing players registered with it from participating in chess tournaments organized with other chess associations and organizations which are not recognized by respondent no.2. she submits this is done to protect the interest of the players from being exploited by such other associations/organizations. Whether or not the said activity of respondent no.2 falls foul of the Competition Act would be an issue to be determined by the Competition Commission, and I am not required to go into the said issue.
33. The power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India extends to the issuance of appropriate directions, orders or writs for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose. Since in the present case the petitioner has brought to this Court.s notice the aforesaid state of affairs in relation to respondent no.2, this Court is of the opinion that the said aspects need thorough investigation under the provisions of the Competition Act by the Competition Commission. There could be breach of the petitioners fundamental rights to freedom, resulting from the policies and practices of respondent No.2, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
34. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal (supra) has recognized the power of the High Court, in appropriate cases, to require the CBI to cause an investigation in relation to a case falling within its territorial jurisdiction. If the High Court can direct the investigation to be made by the CBI in appropriate cases, whereby the provision of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is over ridden, certainly the High Court can direct the making of a reference to the Competition Commission under Section 19 of the Competition Act, particularly when the Competition Commission can cause the investigation to be made not only suo motu, but on receipt of intimation “from any person”. In fact, in State of West Bengal (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph 45 observed that being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction, but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general, and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. The judgment in the case of T.C.Thangaraj (supra) has no application in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the substantially different positions of the Competition Act, 2002 and the Delhi Police Establishment Act whereunder CBI is constituted.
35. I, therefore, direct the Competition Commission to enquire into the alleged contravention of the provisions of Section 3 and Section 4 by respondent no.2 by its aforesaid constitutional provisions and conduct under Section 26 of the Competition Commission Act, 2002. The petitioner may appear before the Commission on 28.11.2011. The petitioner shall present before the Commission a memorandum containing its grievances in this respect on the said date.
36. It is made clear that observations made by me in relation to the case of respondent no.2 are only prima facie, and shall not prejudice their case and the Commission shall enquire into the same independently. - VIPIN SANGHI, NOVEMBER 04, 2011

[Ihor Lewyk]

Well said Stewart,
I think this development is far more worrying than FIDE electing a few Vice Presidents prematurely.
Maybe the 150 Indians can be adopted and registered by the ECF so their appeals can be heard. Of course this would probably require a ludicrously high transfer fee.
Thanks Kevin for bringing this to our notice but is there anything constructive that we can do about it to get the Indian players registered and playing chess again?

[Warren Kingston]

More info http://www.legalindia.in/court-refuses- ... federation