Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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"]

Latest Legal News