Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

PIL - Irregularities in Special Olympics Bharat: Delhi High Court Ordered for   Strict Compliance with National Sports Development Code

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the Delhi High Court has delivered a judgment emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with the National Sports Development Code (NSDC) while resolving allegations of irregularities in the functioning of Special Olympics Bharat (SOB).

The court, in its observation, highlighted the key aspects of the case. Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula, the bench overseeing the case, underlined the significance of adhering to the NSDC in the realm of sports governance.

The case, brought as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), raised concerns about irregularities and favoritism in the selection of sportspersons for Special Olympics World Games and the appointment of office-bearers within SOB. The judgment outlined several critical points:

 

  • “The issues raised by the Petitioner relate to alleged irregularities and favoritism in the selection of sportspersons for Special Olympics World Games; and in the appointment of office-bearers of SOB, specifically the Chairman, CEO, National Sports Director, and National Coach.”

One of the central issues addressed was the continuity of office-bearers beyond the prescribed tenure. The court made it clear that this violated the NSDC:

  • “Respondent No. 5 has continued in the post of Chairperson since the constitution of SOB in 2002 and has now attained the age of 90 years. Clause 9(iii) of Annexure XIII of the NSDC states that the Chairperson of any recognized National Sports Federation shall cease to hold the post on attaining the age of 70 years.”

Additionally, the appointment of the National Coach was scrutinized for compliance with NSDC guidelines:

 

 

  • “SOB has failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that Respondent No. 6 was appointed as National Coach by a selection committee constituted in accordance with the Guidelines prescribed in Annexure XXI of NSDC.”

The court commended positive developments that occurred during the proceedings, including the appointment of new office-bearers and the selection of coaches in accordance with NSDC guidelines.

  • “In light of these positive developments that have taken place during the pendency of these proceedings, this Court is of the opinion that the issues raised by the Petitioner in the present PIL have been substantively resolved by SOB.”

The judgment concluded by stressing the need for SOB to maintain strict compliance with the NSDC in future elections, selections, and sports governance activities.

  • “SOB must continue to ensure strict compliance with the NSDC for all the upcoming elections of office-bearers at the national and state level and for the selection of sportspersons and national coaches for the upcoming Special Olympic World Games, 2025.”

The verdict comes as a significant reminder of the importance of adhering to regulatory codes and guidelines in the administration of sports organizations and federations.

Date of Decision: 08 November 2023

VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

 

Latest Legal News