Abhinav Bindra questions inconsistencies in IOA's SOM election rules
Bindra says PT Usha failed to address his constitutional concerns
IOA elections face scrutiny over alleged irregularities and campaigning violations
Olympic champion Abhinav Bindra has raised questions over the Indian Olympic Association's (IOA) electoral framework, calling for greater transparency and consistency between the body's Constitution and the regulations governing its Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit (SOM) elections.
The former shooter has flagged an apparent discrepancy between Article 3.7 of the IOA Constitution and the recently introduced rules under which eight former athletes were elected to the IOA General Assembly on November 9.
Bindra, who won India's first individual Olympic gold medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, participated in the online voting but chose not to contest for a position.
His concerns were raised before the elections, when he wrote to IOA president PT Usha on October 31, seeking clarification on the interpretation of the two provisions.
After stating that his central question remained unanswered, Bindra made the correspondence public on November 12. He maintained that his intervention was aimed at improving institutional accountability and was not connected to the prospects of any individual candidate.
In his post on X, the Olympic champion stressed that the credibility of India's sporting institutions must develop alongside the country's ambitions and achievements on the international stage.
"I have always believed that the strength of an institution lies not in the absence of questions, but in its willingness to address them. Strong governance is not merely an administrative necessity; it is the foundation upon which lasting sporting progress is built," Bindra wrote.
He further added, "My sincere hope is that we move forward with a shared commitment to constitutional clarity, fairness and integrity in all our institutional and electoral processes. These principles must never depend on individuals or outcomes.
"Ultimately, the credibility of our sporting institutions rests not merely on the decisions they make, but on the fairness and integrity of the processes through which those decisions are reached. Indian sport deserves nothing less."
But what exactly has Bindra questioned, how were the SOM elections conducted, and why has the IOA's electoral process become a subject of wider debate?
What Is The Abhinav Bindra-IOA Dispute?
The disagreement centres on two provisions governing the selection of Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit: Article 3.7 of the IOA Constitution and the newly notified SOM Rules.
Article 3.7 of the Constitution states that "eight SOMs shall be selected by the Athletes Commission and ratified by the General Assembly prior to the election of the IOA office bearers".
This was the mechanism followed during the previous IOA elections in 2022.
However, the process adopted for the 2026 elections was different. Under the new SOM Rules, an 80-member roster was prepared by the Electoral Officer using a 10-tier eligibility framework.
Eight representatives, comprising four men and four women, were subsequently elected from this roster to the IOA General Assembly.
The newly introduced regulations state, "SOMs forming part of the IOA General Assembly shall be elected only from amongst the persons included in the SOM Roster created and published on the IOA website."
Both the IOA Constitution and the SOM Rules were ratified at a Special General Meeting on September 8, 2026.
Bindra's question is essentially about how the two provisions are meant to work together. He sought to understand the basis for adopting the new electoral arrangement when Article 3.7 already specifies a procedure for selecting SOM representatives.
His concern is not simply about the introduction of a different voting mechanism, but whether the revised framework is consistent with the association's constitutional provisions.
What Did Bindra Ask PT Usha?
Before the elections, Bindra wrote to IOA president PT Usha and chief executive officer Raghuram Iyer on October 31, requesting clarification on the apparent difference between the Constitution and the new election regulations.
While he received an indication of which rules would be followed, he said the specific question concerning their constitutional interpretation was not answered.
In his correspondence, Bindra highlighted the importance of addressing such concerns to maintain confidence in the association's functioning.
"Small improvements in clarity, communication and institutional responsiveness can make a considerable difference to the trust and confidence people place in our systems," he wrote.
He also stated, "Ultimately, strong institutions are not defined by the absence of questions, but by the confidence and openness with which they address them."
The former shooter later decided to release the October 31 letter after the private correspondence entered the public domain and was referenced in media reports. He said making the communication public was intended to establish its original context rather than escalate the disagreement.
Bindra also clarified that he had independently decided against contesting the elections, but believed the constitutional question deserved attention regardless of his own participation.
"While I have independently decided not to pursue candidature, I do believe the question I raised remains relevant, irrespective of my own participation in the electoral process," he wrote.
Expressing disappointment over the lack of a substantive response, he added:
"I must admit to feeling a little disappointed that a genuine question concerning the interpretation of our own Constitution could not be addressed. There may well be a perfectly reasonable explanation for the apparent inconsistency, and I would have welcomed the opportunity to understand it."
Bindra maintained that he had not received a substantive clarification from either the Electoral Officer or the IOA leadership.
How Were The IOA SOM Elections Conducted?
The November 9 elections were held to fill eight positions in the IOA General Assembly through the Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit category.
The electoral framework provided for an 80-member roster, prepared by the Electoral Officer through a 10-tier eligibility system. The eight available positions were divided equally between men and women.
Voting was conducted online under the supervision of IOA-appointed Electoral Officer Sanjay Kumar Srivastava. Bindra was among the 80 members who participated in the process.
According to the results sheet issued by the Electoral Officer, all 80 members cast their votes.
In the women's category, former athletes Anju Bobby George, Rani Rampal, Dola Banerjee and Saina Nehwal secured the four positions. PT Usha finished fifth and missed out on a place in the General Assembly.
Anju topped the voting with 53 votes, followed by Rani with 50, Dola with 45 and Saina with 43. Usha received 40 votes.
The men's category saw Gagan Narang, Vijender Singh, Yogeshwar Dutt and Kamlesh Mehta elected unopposed after the withdrawal of other candidates.
The outcome was significant for Usha, whose position in the General Assembly was important for her prospects of contesting the December presidential elections.
Why Has The IOA Election Process Become Controversial?
The November 9 polls have attracted scrutiny beyond the constitutional questions raised by Bindra. Allegations surrounding campaigning practices, withdrawals and the conduct of the voting process have added to the dispute.
Usha questioned the credibility of the online election, describing it as a "farce" and alleging electoral irregularities. She also approached Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), seeking intervention.
The IOA president separately lodged a complaint against Dola Banerjee, alleging that she had solicited votes through WhatsApp messages in violation of the Model Code of Conduct.
Counter-allegations also emerged during the dispute. Commonwealth Games gold medallist Sathish Sivalingam accused Usha of attempting to influence the electoral roster through the use of IOA resources.
Former sprinter Ashwini Nachappa subsequently alleged that external pressure had forced candidates, including herself, to withdraw from the contest.
Meanwhile, Electoral Officer Sanjay Kumar Srivastava defended the integrity of the secret ballot.
Usha has also sought an independent examination of the election process from the IOC, further intensifying the disagreement within the national sports body.
These developments have placed the functioning of the IOA under greater scrutiny at a time when the association is preparing for another important round of elections.
What Is Next For The Indian Olympic Association?
The next major electoral exercise within the IOA is scheduled for December 5, 2026, when the association will hold its Executive Council elections.
Usha's failure to secure a place among the eight elected SOM representatives has complicated her prospects of seeking another presidential term.
Under the IOA framework, a presidential candidate must be a member of the General Assembly or an SOM, although nomination through a National Sports Federation could provide another route to eligibility.
The December elections will determine the association's next leadership and come amid continuing disagreements over its governance and electoral procedures.
For Bindra, however, the issue extends beyond the outcome of the November polls or the position of any particular candidate. His intervention has focused attention on the need for constitutional provisions, election regulations and administrative procedures to be clearly aligned.
"As we look ahead, it is important that our constitutional provisions, electoral rules and administrative procedures are clearly aligned and communicated, leaving as little room as possible for ambiguity.
"Good governance, to my mind, is not simply about following procedures. It is about creating confidence in those procedures. It is about ensuring that athletes and members feel heard, that questions raised in good faith receive due consideration, and that the institution remains open to constructive engagement."
The larger question facing the IOA is whether it can address the concerns surrounding its electoral framework and restore confidence in its governance before the December 5 elections.
