Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

Delhi Court Upholds Wrestling Federation’s Discretion in Exempting Elite Athletes from Selection Trials for Asian Games: “Decision Best Left to the Experts,”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the authority of sports federations to exercise discretion in selecting athletes for international competitions. The judgement, delivered by Justice Subramonium Prasad on July 22, 2023, upheld the decision of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) to exempt elite wrestlers from selection trials for the upcoming Asian Games.

The Court emphasized that the selection of athletes for international sporting events should be left to the expertise of the respective National Sports Federations. Citing previous precedents, the judge stated, “In matters of selecting the best possible candidate to represent India in an international competitive event, there cannot be any interference by this Court in the selection criteria set down by the National Sports Federation concerned.”

The case revolved around the exemption of Respondents No.3 and No.4, both elite athletes, from participating in the selection trials. The WFI, comprising experts in the field of wrestling, unanimously decided to exempt them to prevent potential injuries, given their outstanding performance in world wrestling events.

Justice Prasad highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in sports selection matters, emphasizing that the Court’s interference would only be justified if the discretion of the federation was exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, or perverse manner. “The court cannot clothe itself with the power to make choices and should not substitute its decision over a decision of an Expert Committee,” the judge added.

Addressing concerns of litigations disrupting athletes’ preparation and performance, the Court urged caution in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The ruling emphasized that unnecessary litigations could have adverse effects on the mental and emotional preparedness of players representing the nation in international sports events.

The judgement also addressed disputed documents presented during the proceedings, asserting that their veracity could only be determined through appropriate litigation.

Date of Decision: July 22, 2023

SUJEET AND ANR   vs  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS     

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Sujeet_Vs_UOI_22July2023_Del.pdf"]

Similar News