The Indian Olympic Association has locked in a Model Code of Conduct for its upcoming Athletes’ Commission and Sportspersons of Merit elections, and one clause stands out: candidates cannot criticise their opponents’ private lives.

The Athletes’ Commission vote is scheduled for November 3. The SOM polls follow on November 9. Both elections will be held virtually, and the Electoral Officer, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, will issue separate instructions later. That leaves candidates with a short window to read the rulebook and decide how far they can go.

Twelve candidates are in the fray for the Athletes’ Commission, and the list includes Olympic medallists P.V. Sindhu and Mirabai Chanu. Ten members will be picked, five men and five women. The electoral college for that contest is 34 members, two each from 17 National Sports Federations.

The SOM race is just as crowded in a different way. Eight Sportspersons of Merit will be chosen, four men and four women, from a pool of 80 SOMs notified by the Electoral Officer, split evenly at 40 men and 40 women. Among the names in the running is IOA President P.T. Usha, one of the legendary figures of Indian sport.

The clause on private lives

The rule that has drawn the most attention is simple to state and hard to police. National Sports Federations and candidates must refrain from criticising every aspect of an athlete’s private life that is not connected with their public activities.

NSF and candidates shall refrain from criticism of all aspects of private life, not connected with the public activities of the athletes.

The line draws a boundary around public conduct. Anything tied to an athlete’s public role falls inside the zone of legitimate debate. Everything outside it is off limits. The code does not spell out who decides where that line sits in a heated campaign, and the source material does not say.

The same provision bans criticism based on unverified allegations or distortion. A candidate cannot build a case against a rival on rumour and call it accountability. That matters in a sporting environment where a single whispered accusation can travel faster than any official correction.

Publicity, social media and the ban on public gatherings

The code goes further on publicity. The promotion of a candidate must exclude any form of publicity, including the use of new media or social networks. No public meeting or gathering of any kind may be organised to promote a candidature.

For a generation of athletes who run their own social accounts, that is a sharp restriction. The campaign playbook that works in politics, with rallies, posts and viral clips, is explicitly removed from this contest.

No attacks, no caste or communal appeals

A candidate shall not produce any spoken word, written text or representation of any nature likely to harm the image of another candidate or cause him prejudice. Where criticism is made, it must be confined to policies and programme, past record and work.

The code also forbids any appeal to caste or communal feelings for votes. It bars any activity that may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or tension between different castes, communities, religions or languages.

Bribes, gifts and spending

Candidates have been asked to scrupulously avoid corrupt practices, including bribing voters, intimidating voters and impersonating voters. The code states that candidates may, in no case and under no pretext, give presents, offer donations, gifts or grant advantages of any nature, directly or indirectly, to voting members.

Spending is also under the microscope. Candidates must avoid excessive expenditure in campaigning, and the code says this could become a factor of inequality among those competing. In a 34-member electoral college, a single improper favour is not a small thing.

Neutrality and the written manifesto

The code requires IOA and NSF office-bearers to maintain neutrality. That places the people who run the sporting bodies under the same discipline as the people who want to join them.

Each candidate may also present plans and views for the elected post to the voting members in a written document. The Electoral Officer will publish those documents. The code therefore gives voters a fixed, official record of what each candidate promised, which can be compared against what is said elsewhere.

The code asks that electoral campaigns be carried out in a fair manner and in a spirit of respect for fundamental ethical principles. Candidates must conduct all campaigns with dignity and moderation, and with respect for other candidates, the National Sports Body and its members.

What the rulebook does not say

The text of the code is clear on what is forbidden. It is much less clear on what happens next. The source material does not describe a penalty structure, a complaints process, or any specific violation that has already been reported. Nothing in the text suggests that a candidate has been accused of breaking these rules.

That gap is where the real questions sit. A code that bans criticism of private lives and unverified allegations relies on candidates and office-bearers to police themselves, at least until the Electoral Officer issues further instructions. Those instructions are still to come, and the sources do not indicate when they will arrive.

For now, the facts are firm. Athletes’ Commission voting opens on November 3. SOM voting follows on November 9. Both will be held virtually. The rules that govern them are already written, and they tell candidates what they cannot say about each other, how they cannot campaign and what they cannot offer voters. What happens to anyone who ignores them is the part the public has not been shown yet.

Key dates: November 3 for the Athletes’ Commission election, November 9 for the Sportspersons of Merit election.