FACTS

Taking the courts attention to pg 10 of the written submission. Your lordship,

this matter is 2 facet. Three wrestlers for a particular community were suspend
for life for using a prohibited substance during the the 2015 National games.
They pleaded before the HC of Zahura to declare the same bad in law and that
the course of the prohibited substance is merely a traditional medicine.

While Mr. Qanker, a retired wrestler and present coach form the same
community has questioned the AI algorithm for selective testing and
disproportionately affecting athletes from his community pleading before the
HC of Zahura to hold the NWB and Catcher Pvt. Ltd. liable for violation of
fundamental rights of the community.

The HC has dismissed the petition of Mr. Quankar and has been reluctant to
interfere with the decisions of NWB against the three wrestlers. They have now
knocked the door’s of the Hon’ble Supreme court to seek justice.
Counsel solicits permission to begin!

Greetings to the Hon’ble Bench! If it may please the court, the counsel seeks
permission to address the bench as your Lordship/Ladyship.

The counsel is appearing before the Hon’ble Court on behalf of the

respondents, in the matter of Sother Bolan & Ors. as Appellants no. 1 and
Mr. Quankar as appellant no. 2 v/s Union of Nahira, under Article 132 r/w
Article 134A of the Constitution of Nahira.

You’re Lordship, there are a total of 3 main issues involved in the present
matter. The counsel will be dealing with the first issue and the first limb of the
second issue, while my co-counsel would be dealing with the second limb of
issue no. 2 along with the third issue.

If the bench is well-versed with the facts of the case, Should the counsel
proceed with the pleadings and submissions?

(PAGE 14)

Taking the Court’s attention to page no. 14 of the written submissions, the
counsel would be establishing that the NWB and Catcher Pvt. Ltd. are not
States under Article 12 and hence, cannot be held liable for violation of
Fundamental Rights.
The first and the foremost ground to establish the same is the fact that NWB
and Catcher Pvt. Ltd. are autonomous bodies. You’re Ladyship, to confer the
status of ‘State’ on a body, the evolution of Article 12 has to be analysed and
studied thoroughly.

In the case of Sabhajit Tewary v. UOI (1975), the court held that the body in
question must be formed under a statute. The ambit of state further evolved in
the RD Shetty (1979) and Ajay Hasia (1981) case, wherein it was observed
that statutory genesis cannot be the only basis for determining a body as a state.
Furthermore, in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of
Chemical Biology (2002), the court held that the body in question must be
financially, functionally, and administratively, dominated by or under the
control of the government. If the control is merely regulatory whether under
statute or otherwise, then it won’t come under the ambit of state.

Your Lordship, in the present matter, both NWB and Catcher Pvt. Ltd. are
private entities and do not fulfil any of the conditions as laid down in the
previously stated landmark judgements. They are independent and autonomous
bodies, completely free from governmental control, financing and interference.

(1.1.1.)

My lord, talking about NWB solely, the NWB has not been created by means
of any statute and is merely registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860. Also, the fact that NWB has a monopoly control over wrestling in Nahira,
does not make it a state per se. This was held in the case of Zee Telefilms v.
UOI (2005). NWB is only responsible to oversee the sport of wrestling and to
organise national and international events.
 (1.1.2.)

You’re Lordship, the government has no control over the finances nor does it
provide any financial assistance to the board. Article 4 of the Constitution of
the National Wrestling Board provides for membership fee, which the board
collects from its members annually a sum of 15,000 Rs. Furthermore, Article 6
(c) and (d) states that it is the executive committee of the board that is
responsible to supervise the finances and give financial assistance whenever
required. This shows that the funds are collected from the members itself, which
is further used for the financing purposes.

(1.1.3.)

You’re Lordship, the counsel further contends that Catcher Pvt. Ltd. is not an
instrument of the state and does not even fall under the ambit of ‘Other
Authorities’ under Article 12.

In the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, the court laid down
certain tests at adjudge whether a body is an instrument of the state of not.

 When the government owns the entire share capital of a body, it can be
interpreted as a government instrumentality.
 If the government provides financial assistance that covers almost all
expenses, it may indicate that the organisation has a governmental
character.
 Monopoly status granted or protected by the state is a relevant factor
to consider.
  The existence of deep and pervasive state control may indicate that the
body is a state instrumentality.
 If the body's functions are of public importance and closely related to
governmental functions, it is relevant to treat the body as an
instrumentality of the government.

In the present matter, none of the conditions or tests gets fulfilled. Catcher Pvt.
Ltd. is a private entity and the government has no control over it neither
administratively or financially. It is also not carrying out any functions of public
importance. Thus, it can be safely concluded that Catcher Pvt. Ltd. is not an
instrumentality or the agency of a state.

(1.2.)

You’re Lordship, in the second ground the counsel would be establishing that
there is no violation of fundamental rights of the Bolan wrestlers and the
community as a whole.

The NWB has done nothing, but has always meticulously adhered to the NADA
Rules, fair testing strategy and has given equal opportunities of representation to
all the communities in the country of Nahira.

Counsel further contends that arguendo, even if this court were to consider
NWB a state, yet, this appeal cannot be maintained because the fundamental
rights of neither appellants were violated. During the national games only 3
wrestlers out of the 15 Bolan were caught using prohibited substances. This
proves that the basis of suspension was not their association with Mr. Quankar
or the fact that they hailed form the Bolam Community but solely the presence
of a prohibited substance in their samples.

NWB has followed the due process of law and has adhered closely to the
NADA Rules in the procedure of suspecting, sampling, suspending the three
wrestlers. The rules provide for a life-time suspension for repeat offenders
under Article 10 and abiding by the same, the Board penalised the three
Wrestlers.

Your lordship, NWB’s decision to incorporate state of the art AI testing facilites
cannot be challenged on the gorunds of Equality or Discrimination either.
Appellant No. 2’s contention that NWB lacks representation from Bolam
community can be countered with the fact that not only was he offered the post
of chairman at NWB but it was him who blatantly denied this opportunity out of
free will. The refusal and the reasoning for the same weaken the appellant’s
claim of lack of representation.

The meticulous adherence to NADA Rules, fair testing strategy and AI scrutiny,
opportunity of representation to all communities and overall preservation of
integrity of sports by the Board has been a testament to their commitment to
upliftment of the country and protection of fundamental rights of all citizens.
Per the case if charjit law Chaudhary SC mandates the proof of arbitrariness or
bias in a law which the appealing has not been able to bring to light. Therefore,
the Hon’ble High Court of Zahura has rightly dismissed the writ petition against
NWB & Catcher Pvt. Ltd., stating that NWB acted within its powers and did not
violate the principles of equality.

If the bench is satisfied with the pleadings of the 1 st issue, the counsel seeks
permission to proceed to the next issue.

(ISSUE 2)
If the bench would be kind enough to turn to page number 20 of the written
submissions, herein, the counsel would be establishing that the invocation of the
Nada Rules, 2015 against the Bolan athletes for the use of 'actoprotectors' in
'batavari srahmi ras,' and the imposition of lifetime suspensions on sother bolan,
ether bolan, and nover bolan is not bad in law.

In the first limb of the submissions, the counsel would establish that the samples
collected of the athletes has the presence of a prohibited substance named
‘Actoprotectors’, which is a prohibited substance by WADA. Article 2.1.1 of
the NADA Rules, 2015, states that it is the personal duty of each athlete to
ensure that no prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers are found to be
present in their sample. Thus, the elements such as fault or intent is immaterial.
NADA follows the principle of ‘Strict Liability’ under this regard.

(Page 21, Para 24, Line no. 1)

In the case of Mariano Puerta v. International Tennis Federation, a tennis

player was held guilty of doping, despite the fact that he unknowingly
consumed prohibited substance while drinking water from the same glass that
his wife used to take medication. In the present matter, actoprotectors was found
inside the body of the athletes which is sufficient to establish doping.

(2.1.1.)

Moreover, Article 2.1.2. of the NADA Rules, 2015, states that the presence of a
prohibited substance in the sample of the athletes is a sufficient proof of doping
and rule violation. This was very well established by the Wrestling Board as per
the moot proposition.
My Lords, the S6 category of the 2015 Prohibited List of WADA of
prohibited substances prohibits the use of Bromantan, which is nothing, but the
chemical compound of actoprotectors. It is a prohibited substance in-
competition that means that no athlete can consume that substance while they
are playing in a comnpetition. However, the Bolan athletes were caught using it
during the national games of 2015, making them guilty as per the rules.