Explained: What is Article 3.7 in IOA constitution which Abhinav Bindra is speaking of?

Olympic champion Abhinav Bindra has raised questions over the Indian Olympic Association's (IOA) 2026 election process, pointing to what he believes is an inconsistency between the body's Constitution and the rules framed for the selection of its Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit (SOMs).

At the centre of the issue is Article 3.7 of the IOA Constitution, which specifies how eight SOM representatives must be selected.

Bindra believes the process adopted for the 2026 elections does not appear to follow this provision and has sought clarity from the IOA leadership.

The issue has gained prominence at a crucial time, with the IOA scheduled to elect its Executive Council for the 2026–2030 term on December 5.

Here's a breakdown of the controversy.

What is Article 3.7 of the IOA Constitution?

Article 3.7 states that eight Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit, comprising four men and four women, shall be selected by the Athletes' Commission and ratified by the General Assembly.

These representatives are important to the IOA's governance structure. They become members of the General Assembly, giving them voting rights in the association's elections and making them eligible to contest for leadership positions, subject to the applicable eligibility requirements.

Additionally, two of the eight representatives, one man and one woman, receive direct representation on the IOA Executive Council.

Essentially, the provision gives former athletes a formal role in the administration of Indian Olympic sport.

What is the inconsistency Abhinav Bindra has flagged?

The controversy stems from the separate SOM election rules introduced by the IOA for 2026.

Instead of the Athletes' Commission selecting the eight representatives, the new mechanism created an 80-member electoral pool comprising 40 men and 40 women, consisting of former elite athletes. Members of this pool voted online to elect the eight SOM representatives.

The Athletes' Commission's role was consequently limited to encouraging eligible athletes to apply.

Bindra has questioned how this mechanism fits within Article 3.7, particularly because the constitutional provision explicitly assigns the selection responsibility to the Athletes' Commission.

He has also drawn attention to Article 32 of the IOA Constitution, which establishes the supremacy of the Constitution over conflicting bye-laws and regulations.

His central question is whether separate election rules can introduce a selection mechanism that differs from what the Constitution prescribes.

The distinction is important: Bindra is seeking constitutional clarity on the process, rather than calling for individual candidates or election outcomes to be targeted.

Why has the issue come up now?

The timing is significant because the selection of the eight SOM representatives has already concluded, and they will have a role in the upcoming IOA leadership elections.

The men's SOM elections were held on November 7, with Gagan Narang, Vijender Singh, Yogeshwar Dutt and Kamlesh Mehta securing the four positions.

The women's elections followed on November 9. Anju Bobby George, Rani Rampal, Dola Banerjee and Saina Nehwal were elected.

One of the biggest talking points was the defeat of incumbent IOA President PT Usha, who finished fifth with 40 votes and missed out on a SOM position.

Usha has alleged electoral irregularities and approached the International Olympic Committee (IOC), seeking an independent examination of the process. Allegations of campaigning violations and misuse of resources have also emerged from the competing sides.

Bindra had initially raised his concerns privately with the IOA leadership on October 31. After not receiving a substantive clarification, he made his letter public on November 12.

He has maintained that his concerns are about institutional transparency and adherence to the IOA Constitution.

Who can intervene if there is a constitutional violation?

The question of who has the authority to examine the issue is particularly important because the returning officer's role is primarily limited to administering the election under the notified election rules.

The broader constitutional dispute may require examination by other authorities.

1. IOA Arbitration and Ethics Commissions

The IOA's internal mechanisms can examine disputes arising from the election process and alleged ethical violations. The Arbitration Commission deals with disputes within its jurisdiction, while the Ethics Commission examines alleged misconduct.

2. International Olympic Committee

The IOC is the international governing authority responsible for overseeing compliance with the Olympic Charter. PT Usha has already approached the organisation over alleged irregularities in the SOM elections.

Depending on the nature and findings of an examination, the IOC can seek corrective measures where breaches of its governance requirements are established. Serious violations of the Olympic Charter can also have wider consequences for a National Olympic Committee.

3. Indian legal and sports-governance authorities

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025, and the National Sports Governance (National Sports Bodies) Rules, 2026, provide a statutory framework for the governance and dispute resolution of recognised national sports bodies.

Indian courts may also be approached over questions of constitutional or statutory compliance, subject to jurisdiction and applicable legal requirements.

The precise forum and remedies available would depend on the nature of the complaint and the applicable provisions.

What happens next?

The IOA Executive Council elections are scheduled for December 5, 2026, to determine the association's leadership for the next four years.

Unless an appropriate authority orders a change or intervention in the process, the eight newly elected SOM representatives will be part of the electoral college for the leadership elections.

The outcome will have implications beyond the immediate leadership contest.

India is preparing to host the 2030 Commonwealth Games in Ahmedabad and is pursuing its ambition to host the 2036 Olympic Games. The IOA's governance and administrative credibility will be important as the country prepares for these major sporting ambitions.

For now, the central question raised by Bindra remains unanswered: does the 2026 SOM selection process comply with the IOA Constitution, particularly Article 3.7?

And with the December 5 elections approaching, clarity on that question could prove crucial to the credibility of the organisation's electoral process .