SPORTS LAW ASSIGNMENT-I

CASE ANALYSIS
KARAMJYOTI VS UNION OF INDIA
&OTHERS

BY:
THIRUVIKRAMAN.T
18BLB1080
Karamjyoti vs Union of India and Ors. on 11 August 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 09th August 2016

Judgment delivered on: 11th August 2016

WP(C) 6815/2016 & CM No.27978 /2016

KARAMJYOTI .... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .... Respondents

Karamjyoti seeks the quashing of the action by the respondent because the
Union of India and Sports Authority of India respectively in not selecting the
petitioner for participation in the Rio Paralympic Games, 2016 Further,
mandamus is sought to select Karamjyoti for participation in the upcoming
Paralympic Games, 2016 "Discus Throw" and to re- conduct selection trials in a
fair and transparent manner. The contention of Karamjyoti is that she is a
"Discus Throw" national para-athlete and has won two medals in Para-Asian
Games, 2014. Because of her merit, she has won a "Quota" for the upcoming
Rio-Paralympic Games, 2016 and is the first Indian female para-athlete to win
such a Quota. She won the Quota based on the International Paralympic
Committee Athletics Marathon World Cup (London), 2016 method, one of the
qualification systems prescribed by the Qualification Guide issued by the
International Paralympic Committee for the Rio Paralympic Games, 2016.
Karamjyoti in the International Paralympic Committee Athletics rankings over a
12-month period commencing from 01.04.2015 to 01.04.2016 ranks No. 5 in the
world in the discipline of "Women Discus Throw". It is the contention that, as
per the International Paralympic Committee Regulations, since she has earned
the Quota, she alone has the right to be sent for participation in the upcoming
Rio Paralympic Games, 2016.
Each sport is given a fixed number (quota) of athletes Slot that may participate
in the Games. The allocation of Allocation these qualification slots is then
attributed to either an individual athlete/team or to their NPC depending on the
sport and the respective qualification method. Opposing the quota two other
opposed the quota and demanded a selection wherein she was not required to
undergo any trial as she had secured the Quota and had the right to go against
the said Quota. It is contended that in case the Karamjyoti had not secured
Quota, no female athlete would have had an opportunity to represent the
country. It is contended that it is for the first time that any female athlete had
earned the Quota on her own merits and since she had earned the Quota on her
own merits, she alone has the right to represent India. After the selection had
completed the fouls committed by the respondent were all fouls and yet she was
still selected but filed a re-selection. The selection committee was founded to be
solely relying on the qualification and selection process to represent the country
in the Rio 2016 Paralympics Karamjyoti claimed that she should be left to
participate in the Paralympics and that a spot was supposed to be reserved for
her as she was selected but then the union of India claimed that the spot was
reserved for the best performing athlete who will be selected via a selection
process and be represented for the country and that the position not to be given
an individual .
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was dealing with the issue pertaining to right of
the Petitioner, a para-athlete, to represent India based on earning Qualification
Slot in accordance with the prescribed qualification system. Pointing out the
regulations prescribed by the Qualification Guide issued by International
Paralympic Committee, the Petitioner questioned her non-selection for the Rio
Paralympic Games 2016. The Court on examining the facts, submissions of the
parties and the relevant regulations of the Qualification Guide, observed and
held:
(i) Sports Authority of India was given the authority by International
Paralympic Committee to look after the affairs and interests of the para-athletes
including their travels and accommodation for the Rio Paralympic Games 2016.
(ii) The Qualification Guide postulates that the qualification slot is allotted to
the National Paralympic Committee and not to the individual athlete. The fact
that the Petitioner won a qualification slot, does not ipso facto entitle her to
represent India because the slot was allocated to National Paralympic
Committee and not to the Petitioner in individual capacity.
(iii) In the matter of selecting the best possible athlete to represent India in an
international event, the decision shall be left to the experts in the field and
Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would
not examine the merits of the decision. The examination would be limited to
ascertain whether the selection process is transparent and fair. The Sports
Authority of India has conducted trials in a fair and transparent manner without
any bias, and hence, no interference required.
(iv) It is not a practice to nominate only those athletes who have earned the
qualification slot. The selection trials are conducted, the performances of
athletes are evaluated and then a decision is taken to nominate an athlete.
(v) The Petitioner’s argument, that the athlete who has earned the qualification
slot is the best athlete to represent, on the first blush does appear to be appealing
but when the same is considered considering the regulations prescribed by
Qualification Guide, it loses its relevance.

(vi) A Court would not interfere in the exercise of discretion of National Sports
Federation except where the discretion is shown to be exercised in an arbitrary
and perverse manner or contrary to the settled principles and practices. The last-
minute challenge to selection can disturb the mental preparation of the selected
athlete.
In the case, the concerned NSF (i.e., the Sports Authority of India because of
banning of Paralympic Committee of India) has decided to hold selection trials
and all athlete’s male and female were asked to undergo the same. The selection
has been made by the expert selection committee based on the performance
during Selection Trials and the status of athletes in comparison to the world
rankings. The court do not find the procedure adopted to be arbitrary, perverse
or irrational. In the courts view, the selection has been done in a fair and
transparent manner and no interference in the same is called for, claiming that
whoever is to represent the country in an international event the sports authority
of India has the right to intervene and conduct a fair selection in athlete to
represent the country and that there were no further trial, and the case was
dismissed.
(i) indiankanoon.org/doc/139275608/
(ii) lexindis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/AUTONOMY-OF-
NATIONAL-SPORTS-FEDERATIONS.pdf
(iii) https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/
5e96c6d44653d053645823a6
Self-Analysis on the case:
The petitioner of the case was given a chance to participate in the Rio 2016
Paralympics but she was not permitted by the sporting authorities to participate
sating that it would be favouritism and that a fair trial should be conducted and
that the sporting authorities will select who should represent the country in
participating in the Paralympics and it was fully and should be done by the
sporting federation of India and the paralympic sporting committee, after the
trial and selection process others were selected over the petitioner because of
her comparatively poor performance and leading to disqualification and file a
case against the union of India claiming that she had already was a qualified
athlete for the Paralympics but was not given her hard earned chance and that
the sporting federation should select people based on their recent performances
in other sports events and given a reservation for their achievement , my opinion
on this is that people who have been performing well in recent events should be
given a reservation slot as for their achievement and other slots to people based
on the selection process. So, that athletes may perform in full spirits in other
sports events and shine and it would motivate them to further perform for the
same to the country as well.