Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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