Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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.

 

Similar News