When a Man Without Arms Swims for the Nation and Wins Medals, the State Must Salute—Not Stifle—His Rights: Karnataka High Court Orders Payment to International Para-Swimmer

“State Cannot Hide Behind Bureaucracy to Deny a Medallist His Due”, Karnataka High Court Slams State for Withholding Cash Award to Disabled International Medal-Winning Para-Swimmer

Karnataka High Court, in a forceful and empathetic judgment, allowed the writ petition of Sri Vishwas K.S., a double-arm amputee international para-swimmer, and directed the State of Karnataka to release the remaining ₹1,26,000/- of a ₹6,00,000/- cash award due under a 2013 Government Order. The Court also imposed personal costs of ₹2,00,000/- on erring government officials for bureaucratic apathy and inhumane treatment, observing that justice delayed to persons with disabilities diminishes their dignity.

“When a man without arms dives into pools and emerges not just victorious, but triumphant on the international stage, the State is expected to salute that spirit, not stifle his rights by redtapism.” [Para 12]

Background: A Story of Triumph—And of Bureaucratic Neglect

Petitioner Sri Vishwas K.S., who lost both arms at a young age, emerged as a celebrated international para-athlete. His achievements include:

• 2 silver and 1 bronze medal at the Speedo Can-Am Championships, Canada (2016)

• Bronze medals at the IOM Berlin Para-Swimming Open (2017, 2018)

• Multiple gold and silver medals in national para-swimming events

• Recognition through prestigious awards like the Karnataka Rajyotsava Award, Role Model Award (Vice-President of India), and Kempegowda Award

Despite fulfilling all criteria under Government Order No. YuSeEe 278 YuSeKree 2013 which mandates ₹6,00,000/- for medal-winning para-athletes, the State only paid ₹4,74,000/- and failed to disburse the balance ₹1,26,000/-.

“Despite achieving success and recognition… I have been made to run from pillar to post to secure what I am entitled to, and what is lawfully mine.” – Petitioner’s representation [Para 10]

Government’s Defence: Technicalities Over Humanity

The State resisted the claim, contending that:

• The petitioner’s association was under suspension between April 2015 and June 2016

• Therefore, the petitioner was only eligible for ₹4,74,000/- under a 2017 GO

The Court dismissed this line of reasoning as fundamentally flawed, ruling that cash awards are tied to individual merit, not to the administrative status of associations.

“Such submissions would only do little to mask the injustice… The cash prize is awarded not because of sportsperson being from any Association… It is the said sportsperson’s effort.” [Para 11]

Rights Violated, Dignity Undermined

Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered a scathing indictment of the State’s bureaucratic indifference and failure to uphold its constitutional obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016:

“The Government’s duty is not merely administrative, it has to be moral, constitutional and humane.” [Para 12]

“Such callous indifference… towards a person with disability, calls for not just a correction, but censure.” [Para 13]

The Court also condemned the pattern of selective recognition, where certain sports and athletes are favoured while others, including para-athletes, are neglected:

“All sports are equal; all sportspersons are also equal… it is unfortunate that the State pampers only a few and leaves others in the lurch.” [Para 14]

Exemplary Costs: Bureaucrats to Personally Pay ₹2,00,000/-, Not Public Exchequer

Finding that no payment was made for six years, and only part-payment was made after notice was issued in the present writ petition, the Court ruled:

“The officers must be mulcted with payment of exemplary costs… not from State funds, but their own pocket.” [Para 16]

“Justice delayed, especially to those who overcome the gravest of odds like the petitioner, is not only justice denied, but dignity diminished.” [Para 16]

Final Reliefs and Directions:

Justice Nagaprasanna issued the following binding directions:

1. Writ petition allowed with costs of ₹2,00,000/-, payable personally by the responsible officers of the Department of Youth Empowerment and Sports.

2. State directed to release ₹1,26,000/- to the petitioner within 2 weeks.

3. If delayed, ₹1,000 per day to be paid to the petitioner as penalty until payment is made.

4. Directions to be complied with within 4 weeks, failing which officers could be held further accountable.

Human Spirit Over Technical Hurdles

The Karnataka High Court’s ruling serves as a landmark in protecting the rights and dignity of para-athletes. It sends a clear message: the bureaucracy must serve—not stifle—the citizen, particularly when that citizen has battled odds unimaginable and brought pride to the State.

“The petitioner has participated in events from 2016 to 2018… Six years pass by; not a rupee is paid… it is a sad reflection on the functioning of the State’s machinery.” [Para 15]

Date of Decision: July 21, 2025