Delhi High Court
Ms Rupal Anand vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2019
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12680/2018 & CM Nos. 49294/2018, 53247/2018,
53726/2018
MS RUPAL ANAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms Kamini Jaiswal, Senior
Advocate, Mr Rohit Kumar
Singh, Mr Raghavendra Pratap
Singh and Ms Shumaila Altaf,
Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Harsh Ahuja and Mr Kushal
Kumar, Advocates for Ms
Monika Arora, CGSC for UOI.
Mr Nalin Kohli, Mr Ankit Roy,
Advocates for R-2.
Mr Mridul Jain, Spl. PP for
CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 14.02.2019
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner is an accomplished badminton player and she
claims that she is ranked at serial no. 48 in the order of ranking
maintained by respondent no.2 (Badminton Association of India -
hereafter 'BAI') in Women's Doubles Senior Players Category.
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by
actions of BAI and respondent no.3 (Jammu & Kashmir Badminton
Association) in debarring the petitioner from participating in any
National/International Tournaments pending further action against her.
3. The petitioner claims that she has been victimised on account of
her making a complaint against the son of an important functionary of
BAI.
4. The punitive action has been taken against the petitioner on the
recommendation of the age fraud cell of CBI (respondent no.5).
Respondent no.5 (CBI) had submitted a report dated 19.09.2018
informing BAI that the charge of fabrication of date of birth certificate
against the petitioner stood proved. CBI further recommended that an
appropriate action be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner
claims that without affording the petitioner any opportunity to be
heard, the Jammu & Kashmir Badminton Association had passed an
order dated 04.10.2018 unilaterally deciding to debar the petitioner
from participating in the North Zone Championship, which was
scheduled to be held from 09.10.2018 to 14.10.2018.
5. The petitioner claims that her status on the official website of
BAI has been shown as inactive, and this effectively means that she
has been restrained from participating in any event.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. There is no dispute that a certificate showing incorrect date of
birth had been submitted to BAI. It is alleged that on the basis of a
false birth certificate, the petitioner had participated in National and
International Badminton Tournaments for underage players. Her date
of birth was indicated as 26.12.1996, and on the basis of the same, she
had participated in tournaments for which she was otherwise
ineligible. The preliminary report indicates that that her correct date of
birth was 22.09.1995, which is also established from her school
records and records of the concerned State Board of School Education.
8. The petitioner does not dispute the above allegations. It is her
case that BAI has adopted a policy not to take punitive measures
against players in such cases, as minors cannot be held responsible for
submission of false certificate by their parents.
9. Ms Kamini Jaiswal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner contended that in view of the aforesaid policy of BAI,
the petitioner cannot be debarred from participation in tournaments.
She further contended that the petitioner must be granted the benefit of
her participation in the tournaments in senior category in the past, as
has been done in case of other players. She submitted that the
petitioner has been called upon to apply for a fresh BAI ID, and the
effect of the same would be that her past accomplishments would be
wiped out.
10. She drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 2 of the
additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, which indicates the names
of four players who are facing similar charges. She submitted that the
said four players had not been deprived from participation in
tournaments and, further, have not been called upon to apply for a new
BAI ID. She also contends that the said players had not been deprived
of their past records/accomplishment.
11. In view of the above, this Court had called upon BAI to file a
fresh affidavit with regard to the action taken against the four players
named in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. In
compliance with the aforesaid order, the Assistant Secretary of BAI
has filed an affidavit affirming that BAI had informed the Sports
Authority of India that an action has been taken against the said
players except one player, who has filed a petition before this Court,
which is pending adjudication. It is also affirmed that BAI is taking
necessary steps to bring stringent norms/conditions to curb the menace
of age fraud.
12. Mr Nalin Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the BAI
submitted that the petitioner has not been debarred from participating
in any tournaments but she would require to get an age certification
and to update her BAI ID.
13. This Court is of the view that no interference is called for by
this Court in respect of any disciplinary action that BAI may take
against players who have been found guilty of submitting a false
certificate of their date of birth. There is merit in the contention that a
player who participates in a tournament, for which he/she is ineligible,
effectively subverts the competition and this conduct cannot be
countenanced.
14. Having stated the above, it is also necessary that BAI follow a
uniform policy for dealing with all such cases warranting disciplinary
action. It is not disputed that the four players, mentioned in paragraph
2 of the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, have also
been charged with an allegation of furnishing false certificate of date
of birth. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner must be treated
in parity with those cases in all respects.
15. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by
directing BAI and Jammu & Kashmir Badminton Association to
ensure that the petitioner is treated in parity with the players as
mentioned in the aforesaid additional affidavit, particularly, with
respect of their record of past accomplishments and regarding the
requirement to obtain an updated BAI ID. Any concession granted to
the said players would also be extended to the petitioner.
16. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. All
pending applications stand disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2019
pkv
