BFI Power Struggle Deepens: ₹40 Crore Intimidation Claims and a Crucial October 28 Vote

The power struggle within the Boxing Federation of India (BFI) has intensified, with secretary general Pramod Kumar accusing president Ajay Singh and executive director Col. (retd.) Arun Malik of intimidation to derail a proposed no-confidence motion. The allegations, which include claims of threats against state associations and the unauthorised withdrawal of Kumar's official email access, have been denied by Malik, who has described them as baseless.

The dispute comes as the federation seeks to strengthen Indian boxing through a ₹40 crore partnership with Indian Oil Corporation over two years. With a proposed vote on Singh's leadership scheduled for October 28, the BFI faces the dual challenge of resolving its internal governance dispute and sustaining momentum behind the sport's development.

BFI Power Struggle: What Has Pramod Kumar Alleged?

In a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi dated October 13, Kumar alleged a "serious governance breakdown" within the federation, claiming that a majority of affiliated state units and executive committee members had submitted formal requisitions seeking a no-confidence motion against Singh.

Kumar argued that, as the elected secretary general, he was obliged to act on those requisitions and follow the federation's constitution.

"As the duly elected Secretary General of BFI, I am bound by the Federation's constitution to honour these requisitions and carry out the democratic mandate of our member units," Kumar wrote.

He further alleged that Singh, through Malik, continued to oversee the federation's day-to-day operations and issue instructions despite the proposed motion against the president.

"Basic sports governance and the rules of Natural Justice require that an office bearer facing a motion of No Confidence must not use executive power to defeat or disrupt that process," Kumar stated.

The allegations centre on whether the federation's internal procedures are being followed and whether affiliated state units can participate in the proposed leadership challenge without facing pressure.

Threats Against State Units and Email Access Dispute

Kumar accused the federation's leadership of using administrative measures to obstruct the no-confidence process. He alleged that state associations supporting the motion had faced threats of suspension and the possibility of their elected bodies being replaced by ad hoc committees.

"This criminal intimidation also targets our affiliated state units. Member associations across the country face intense pressure and threats of suspension, including, but not limited to, threats of ad hoc committees replacing them if they support the no-confidence motion," he wrote.

Kumar also claimed that his access to the federation's official email account had been revoked without his knowledge or consent. He said the alleged action had hampered his official work and raised concerns about the security of federation records.

He further expressed concern for his personal safety, writing that he feared for his well-being amid what he described as growing hostility.

Malik has denied both the intimidation allegations and the claim concerning Kumar's email access.

"Nobody has revoked his email access. He can get it checked, we have no issues," Malik told PTI.

He also rejected the broader accusations, saying: "All these allegations are baseless and not true. We have done no such thing."

Why the October 28 No-Confidence Motion Matters

The immediate flashpoint is the proposed Special General Meeting (SGM) on October 28, where Kumar intends to put the no-confidence motion against Singh to a vote.

The meeting has already become the subject of a separate dispute over constitutional authority. According to reports, Kumar initially called for an SGM on October 24 before revising the date to October 28 to account for the required 21-day notice period.

Malik has challenged the validity of the proposed meeting, arguing that the authority to convene an SGM rests with the president. He has described Kumar's communication as illegal and unconstitutional and urged affiliated units not to treat it as a valid notice. He has also referred to a disciplinary enquiry involving Kumar.

"There can't be a meeting because it is unconstitutional. Even if some people gather to meet, it will have no relevance because it is not as per the constitution," Malik told PTI.

The opposing positions leave the federation facing a crucial procedural question: whether the proposed meeting can legally proceed and whether the no-confidence motion will reach a vote. The allegations and counterclaims remain disputed, with no independent finding established in the supplied reports.

₹40 Crore Indian Oil Partnership Offers a Contrasting Picture

The internal dispute has unfolded alongside a significant investment initiative for Indian boxing. The National Sports Development Fund (NSDF), the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and Indian Oil Corporation have signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at strengthening the sport's development pathway.

Under the agreement, Indian Oil will contribute ₹40 crore over two years. The funding is intended to support talent identification, athlete development, coaching, sports science, international exposure, boxing academies and capacity-building for coaches, referees and technical officials.

Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya has said corporate social responsibility-backed partnerships can play an important role in building a national sports ecosystem under the revamped Khelo India scheme. Singh and Malik were also present at the memorandum's signing.

The investment comes after Indian boxers won six medals, including three gold and three bronze, at the 2026 Asian Games. That performance underlined the importance of developing talent from grassroots programmes through to elite international competition.

However, the funding commitment and the governance dispute present two distinct challenges. The partnership creates an opportunity to expand support for boxers, while the allegations have raised questions about the federation's internal functioning and decision-making.

What Happens Next in the BFI Dispute?

The October 28 date is likely to be a key test for the federation, although the validity of the proposed SGM remains contested. Kumar maintains that he is acting on the formal requisitions submitted by affiliated units, while Malik argues that the meeting cannot proceed under the federation's constitution.

The outcome could have implications for the BFI's leadership and its ability to manage the sport's development priorities. For now, the central allegations remain unresolved, and both sides have offered sharply contrasting accounts of the dispute.

Indian boxing has secured a significant funding commitment at a time when its athletes are delivering results on the international stage. Whether that momentum can be sustained will depend not only on the resources available to the sport, but also on the federation's ability to address its leadership conflict through a clear and constitutionally valid process.