The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday ordered that the Boxing Federation of India’s General Body meeting, scheduled for October 28, be kept in abeyance until November 13. The interim order freezes a no-confidence push against federation president Ajay Singh before any vote could take place.

The direction was issued to suspended BFI Secretary General Pramod Kumar. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya issued notice of motion for November 13 and ordered the meeting to stay on hold until the next hearing. The case was brought by Singh himself, who is challenging an October 8 notice. That notice proposed a no-confidence motion against him and called a General Body meeting to consider it.

At the centre of the fight is a threshold that leaves little room for error. According to the petition, the BFI constitution requires a no-confidence motion seeking the President’s removal to be backed by a very high bar of support.

A no-confidence motion seeking the President’s removal must be supported by at least three-fourths of the General Body members at a meeting specifically convened for that purpose.

Singh’s challenge does not stop at the vote count. He is also contesting how the meeting was called in the first place. His petition contends that a Special General Meeting can be convened by the President, or following a request from two-thirds of the Executive Committee members. In other words, the question is not only whether the numbers exist, but who had the authority to put the question on the table.

The federation has pushed back hard on that point. BFI has cited Clause 33(ii) of its constitution, which allows the President to call a Special General Meeting at his discretion or after a written request from two-thirds of the Executive Council members. BFI argues that the required conditions for convening the proposed meeting were not met. It has also pointed to Clause 26(iii), which lets the Secretary General convene General Council and Executive Council meetings under the President’s advice.

The dispute has also drawn attention beyond the courtroom. An email from World Boxing, dated October 23, stressed that any National Federation General Meeting must be convened and conducted in accordance with the applicable federation constitution. That message puts the rulebook at the heart of the row. It also means the legal argument is not just a domestic squabble over procedure. It is a test of whether the constitution is followed to the letter.

For now, the court’s interim direction has done what Singh asked for. The October 28 meeting is on hold. But the court has not ruled on the merits. The underlying dispute over the notice and the meeting’s validity remains to be decided, and that decision will determine whether any future vote carries legitimacy.

BFI has tried to steer its members away from the infighting. The federation urged its members to follow the constitution and comply with the court’s directions. It also asked members to avoid distractions and focus on India’s ambitions in boxing, including its pursuit of Olympic success. Whether that appeal calms the room is another question, because the stakes for the sport’s top job have never been clearer.

The matter will next be heard on November 13. Until then, the federation’s leadership, its executive, and its members are operating under a court order while a constitutional fight over who controls the federation plays out in full view.