Delhi High Court
Rajiv Dutta vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 January, 2016
Author: G. Rohini
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 15th January, 2016
+ WP(C) 8734/2014
RAJIV DUTTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajiv Dutta (Petitioner in-person)
with Mr.Danish George, Mr.Shivam
Singh, Mr.Shravan Kumar Yammanur
and Mr.Kumar Dushyant Singh,
Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Monica Arora, CGSC for R1
Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JUDGMENT
G. ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE:
1. This petition by way of Public Interest Litigation has been filed
raising the issue relating to the alleged illegal suspension of the Respondent
No.5 from participation in the competitions of Amateur International Boxing
Association (AIBA) and the alleged failure of the Respondents 1-3 i.e.,
Union of India, (Department of Sports), the Indian Olympic Association and
Boxing India to challenge the said decision of AIBA.
2. The Respondent No.5 is a Boxer who represented India in the 17th
Asian Games conducted by AIBA at Incheon, Korea between 19.09.2014 to
04.10.2014. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.5 had participated
through Respondent No.3/ Boxing India, an organization recognized by
AIBA to represent the sport of boxing in India. Alleging discrepancies in
the manner of operation of semi final match in which the Respondent No. 5
had participated and non-compliance of Olympic Charter and its Statute, the
Respondent No.5 along with her coaches was provisionally suspended by
AIBA on 21.10.2014.
3. The present petition came to be filed on 05.12.2014 alleging that no
guidelines are in place for settlement of disputes with International Sports
Bodies and contending that it is necessary to ensure that clear guidelines are
formulated for dispute settlement within the sports bodies that come under
the jurisdiction of respondent No.1.
4. From 10.12.2014 the petition was adjourned to 17.12.2014 by which
time a final order came to be passed by the Disciplinary Committee of
AIBA placing the Respondent No.5 under suspension for a period of one
year.
5. On 24.12.2014 we have directed notice to the Respondent No.3. On
05.01.2015, Sh. Chetan Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel appeared on
behalf of Respondent No.3 and submitted that no remedy of appeal is
available against the order dated 17.12.2014 of AIBA placing the
Respondent No.5 under suspension.
6. On 14.01.2015 we have directed notice to the Respondent No.2/
Indian Olympic Association, Respondent No.4/AIBA as well as the
Respondent No.5.
7. Both Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have not chosen to appear. Though
appearance has been entered on behalf of Respondent No.2/Indian Olympic
Association, no counter affidavit has been filed on its behalf till date.
8. So far as the Respondent No.1/UOI is concerned a short affidavit has
been filed on 17.03.2015. In the meanwhile, since the period of suspension
of one year had expired on 01.10.2015, it is conceded by the petitioner that
the prayer (a) in the petition, i.e. to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
take immediate steps to avail the appropriate legal remedies against the
decision of AIBA dated 21.10.2014 placing Respondent No.5 under
suspension does not survive.
9. However, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent
No.1/Union of India to take due cognizance of the Rules and Regulations
framed by the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) situated at Switzerland
and to direct the respective Federations and Associations in India to
incorporate the CAS Arbitration clause within their respective
rules/regulations/bye-laws.
10. The material placed before this Court shows AIBA is an International
Boxing Association registered under the laws of Switzerland. The
disciplinary matters applicable to AIBA are governed by Disciplinary Code
adopted by the Executive Committee of AIBA. It is also not in dispute that
an appeal lies against the decision of the Respondent No.4/ AIBA to the
Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) and Respondent No.4 recognizes the
jurisdiction of CAS.
11. It is pleaded by the petitioner that Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter
which provides that any dispute arising in connection with the Olympic
Games shall be submitted exclusively to CAS in accordance with the Code
of Sports related Arbitration applied to Asian Games also since the term
"Olympic Games" includes Asian Games.
12. It is contended by Shri Rajiv Dutta/ petitioner appearing in person that
in terms of prayer (b) of the writ petition, the respondent No.1/Union of
India may be directed to incorporate CAS Arbitration Clause in the Rules
and Regulations of the National Sports Federations. It is also submitted by
him that the National Sports Code of 2011 which primarily deals with
administering the affairs of the various National Sport Federations within
India contains a provision of appeal to CAS. It is further submitted by Shri
Rajiv Dutta that Article 63.3 of AIBA Statute provides that recourse to the
courts of law of a country is permitted where the law of the country
mandates such recourse. The petitioner therefore submits that if a provision
is incorporated in the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011
providing a remedy of appeal to CAS, it would empower sports persons in
India to appeal against the unjust and unlawful decisions of AIBA and other
such International sports bodies.
13. In the short affidavit filed by the Department of Sports, Union of
India it is explained that series of meetings were convened by the
Department of Sports in which representatives of Indian Olympic
Association, Boxing India and Sports Authority of India were present and
the issue of suspension of Respondent No.5 by AIBA and the feasibility of
filing an appeal against the said decision were discussed. The Minister of
State for Youth Affairs and Sports Minister addressed to the President
AIBA, to revoke suspension of Respondent No.5. On 12.12.2014 the
Disciplinary Commission of AIBA suspended Respondent No.5 from any
activity at the National, Confederation and International Levels for a period
of one year starting form 1st October, 2014. There is no provision of appeal
against the said decision and thus, the decision of Disciplinary Commission
of AIBA has become final.
14. We have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties. It is apparent
from the material placed on record that no remedy is available as of today to
appeal to CAS against the decision of the International Sports Bodies like
AIBA. The fact that CAS is the final authority for settlement of disputes
arising out of the decisions of International Sports Bodies has not been
disputed by the Respondent No.1. It also appears that the National Sports
Code of 2011 contains a provision of appeal to CAS against any decision of
Sports Federations in India.
15. Though no mandamus can be issued to the Respondent No. 1 to
incorporate such provision for remedy of appeal to CAS against the
decisions of the International Sports Bodies, in the light of the facts and
circumstances that have been brought to our notice in the present case, we
deem it appropriate to direct the Respondent No. 1 to consider the contents
of this petition as a representation and take an appropriate decision in
accordance with law after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to Shri
Rajiv Dutta, Senior Advocate/ petitioner herein to substantiate his plea that
it is essential to ensure incorporation of a specific provision for dispute
settlement with International sports bodies. The needful may be done within
three months from today.
16. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JAYANT NATH, J
JANUARY 15, 2016
kks
