Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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