In a forceful censure of bureaucratic apathy, the Karnataka High Court has directed the State to release a pending sum of ₹1,26,000 to international para-swimmer Vishwas K.S. while imposing exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000 on State officials for their “callous indifference” and unjust denial of rightful benefits.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, observed, “All sports are equal; the sportspersons of all sports are also equal; the effort they put is equal, it is unfortunate that State pampers only a few sports and leaves the other sportsmen in the lurch.”
The case arose from the State’s failure to grant the petitioner his rightful monetary incentive under the Government Order, which entitles para-athletes to cash rewards for international achievements. Despite having secured two silver and two bronze medals at international championships between 2016 and 2018, Vishwas, who lost both arms at the age of ten, received only a partial amount and was forced to approach the Court after years of unheeded representations.
The Court narrated the petitioner’s background with palpable judicial empathy, noting that he “defies imagination” by pursuing swimming, a sport “intrinsically tied to the use of limbs” and yet emerged as “a luminous star in the firmament of Para athletics.”
The State contended that the petitioner had already received ₹4.64 lakhs and was not entitled to the remaining sum. It further argued that the association through which the petitioner participated was disqualified during part of the relevant period. The Court, however, dismissed these objections as untenable, observing, “The Association suspension or its subsequent revocation cannot deprive a deserving athlete his rightful reward.”
The Court held that the award is conferred and stated, “not because of sportsperson being from any Association; it is the said sportsperson’s effort during the sporting event that they would win a medal for the Nation or for the State, as the case would be, which would entitle them to get such cash rewards”
Terming the State's conduct a “sad reflection on the functioning of the State’s machinery,” the Court castigated the officials for their prolonged inaction and deliberate withholding of benefits, stating, “Such callous indifference, particularly towards a person with disability, calls for not just a correction, but censure.”
The Court ruled that “A State that prides itself on promoting sports and inclusivity, cannot behave as a litigant, driven by obstinacy and pettiness. It must be a model litigant – fair, responsive and just.”
In an uncommon move, the Court directed that litigation costs of ₹2,00,000 be paid personally by the responsible officers from the Department of Youth Empowerment and Sports, stating, “The cost not be paid from the funds of the State, but from the pocket of the officers who have interpreted the Government Orders in their own way, only to deny full benefits to the petitioner. The officers, I mean, the officers from the Department of Youth Empowerment and Sports, who have denied the benefits to the petitioner all along.”
The Court also imposed a conditional cost mechanism to ensure timely compliance. It directed that if the payment of ₹1,26,000 is not made within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the petitioner would be entitled to an additional amount of ₹1,000 for each day of delay, calculated on a day-to-day basis, until the amount reaches the doors of the petitioner.
Finally, while concluding with a cautionary note, the Court emphasised that this order must serve as a lesson, “The costs are to be imposed as a caution or to serve as a reminder to the officers of the State, that justice delayed, especially to those who overcome the gravest of odds like the petitioner is, not only justice denied, but dignity diminished.”
The writ petition was accordingly allowed with directions to complete compliance within four weeks.
Case Title: Sri Vishwas K.S. Vs. The State Of Karnataka and Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No.20895 of 2023
Coram: Justice M.Nagaprasanna
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Ashwini O
Advocate for Respondent: HCGP Spoorthy Hegde N.
