Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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