MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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