Telangana High Court
Master Shiva Ramakrishna Terli vs The State Of Telangana on 3 April, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 30993 OF 2024
O R D E R:
Aggrieved by the action of Respondents 2 to 4 in
demanding Petitioner to share Aadhar OTP verification,
petitioner is before this Court.
2. At the time of admission of Writ Petition, this
Court, considering the material on record, passed interim order
dated 06.11.2024 which is extracted hereunder:
" Notice before admission.
Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri G. Aditya Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Government Pleader for Sports takes notice on
behalf of respondent No.1 and seeks time to file counter affidavit.
Sri N. Gangadhar, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad
Cricket Association takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and
seeks time to file counter affidavit.
List on 20.11.2024.
Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel draws
attention of this Court to the recent judgment, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of Circular No.08 of 2023
issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). In the
said circular, it was clarified that while an Aadhar card may be used to
establish identity, it does not serve as conclusive proof of date of birth.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court further highlights the unreasonable nature
of the respondents demand for Aadhar OTP verification. In view of the
same, learned Senior Counsel submits that petitioner possess other
documents such as Passport, birth certificate, study certificates from
6th to 9th grade and Aadhar card which satisfy the BCCI's residency
and identity verification requirement. However, ignoring these valid
documents, respondent No.2 is insisting for Aadhar OTP verification
which, according to the learned Senior Counsel is arbitrary and unjust
and obstructing petitioner to participate in the tournament.
In view of the above noted clarification rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, there shall be interim direction as prayed for
3. During the course of hearing, it is informed by
learned Senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner Sri P. Raja
Sripathi Rao that Interim Order passed by this Court was not
implemented by Respondent No. 2 to 4.
4. The basic contention of Petitioner is that he is aged
15 years and he played league matches conducted by
Respondent No. 2 and represented Respondent No. 2 State
team, participated in inter-state zonal matches for U-14 age
group for the season 2022-23. He played Respondent No.2
leagues for the last three years and was the captain for U-14
Hyderabad team in South Zone Boys League Tournament held
in Goa. He also was the top performer in U-16 inter-school and
junior college tournament and scored a total of 444 runs and is
consistently among the highest scores in district level
tournaments. While matters stood thus, on 03.10.2024, at
around 9:26 pm, the father of Petitioner received a call from the
representative of Respondent No. 2 on his mobile number and
demanded to provide One Time Password of Aadhar Card of his
son which was sent to his phone asserting that it is necessary
under the direction of senior officials of Respondent No. 2. In
spite of refusal by the father of Petitioner, the said
representative unauthorisedly accessed Petitioner's Aadhar
details resulting in generating two OTPs through BT-AADHAR
and on refusal to share the same, the representative of
Respondent No.2 had threatened father of Petitioner about the
negative consequences of his son's future cricket career and
threatened to obstruct Petitioner's participation in Respondent
No. 2 tournaments, leagues and other BCCI tournaments. The
father of Petitioner sent e mail to Respondent No. 4 on
04.10.2024, reporting the incidents of demand of OTP on
03.10.2024. The contents of e mail are very categorical and in
brief amounts to raising objection for demanding OTP of
Aadhar. The contents of e mail dated 04.10.2024 is extracted in
Writ Affidavit. Admittedly, there is no response from Respondent
No. 2 to e mail, thereby the father of Petitioner approached one
of the Apex Council Member who, in turn, responded by
addressing e mail to the President, Secretary and the CEO of
Respondent No. 2 Association. However, there is no response to
the said e mail dated 06.10.2024 issued by the Apex Council
Member by the Respondent No. 2.
The father of Petitioner, on 07.10.2024, lodged a
report with police on 07.10.2024 and FIR No. 955 of 2024 was
registered for the offences under Sections 318(2), 308 and 316
of BNS read with Sections 32, 38 and 44 of Aadhar Act &
Sections 66 and 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The said registration of FIR was followed up by sending another
e mail on 08.10.2024 to Respondent No. 2 informing
registration of FIR against Respondents 2 to 4.
While matter stood thus, on 15.10.2024,
Respondent No. 2 sent Whats App message to father of
Petitioner to be present at Uppal Stadium with specific
documents for Petitioner's registration and in the list of
documents that are sought by Respondent No.2 includes
passport size photo, digitalised Date of Birth certificate, school
marks certificate, current year's study Bona fides, player's
Aadhar card, PAN Card, Bank passbook/Cancelled cheque and
Passport (optional) and the specific emphasis of Petitioner is
that nowhere in the said communication, there was a demand
for sharing of Aadhar OTP Verification for requirement as to the
eligibility. Thereby the Aadhar OTP Verification was never
mandated and sudden insistence is not supported by any
official communication or requirement.
It is the further case of Petitioner that in the
context of player's eligibility for BCCI tournaments, it is
explicitly mentioned in the common player registration form
that determination of age for U-16 Boys is relied upon TW-3
method of skeletal maturity while the eligibility for U-19 Boys is
based on the chronological age. It is his specific case that
Petitioner had successfully undergone TW-3 bone test
conducted on 09.09.2024 by Respondent No. 2 and he had
passed the said test and report is in possession and custody of
Respondent No.2. In the guidelines issued by BCCI and Rules
for Registration, it is not the mandate to share Aadhar OTP
Verification for considering eligibility of player. From the
guidelines of BCCI, Aadhar details are one of the several
documents for proof of residence along with other alternatives
like Passport or Voter ID, thereby, demand of the representative
of Respondent No.2 to share Aadhar OTP Verification is in
violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Justice K. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India 1, wherein it
has been held that privacy is an intrinsic part of right of life and
personal liberty. Further, recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had taken notice of Circular No. 8 of 2023 issued by Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). In the said circular, it
was clarified that while an Aadhar card may be used to
establish identity, it need not serve as a conclusive proof of date
of birth. The law laid down by the Supreme Court mentioned
(2017) 10 SCC 1
supra, in clear terms, demonstrates that demand for sharing of
OTP verification, overlooking other documents namely Passport,
Birth Certificate, Study certificates from 6th to 9th grade and
Aadhar Card is an action of vindictiveness by Respondents 2 to
4.
5. To the said Writ Petition, respondents filed counter
asserting that BCCI had issued guidelines for on line
registration of players for the season 2024-25 vide instructions
dated 09.08.2024 and the players opting to register on line must
submit a detailed application form namely -
a) Scanned Original Copy of Computer-generated Date of Birth Certificate
b) Scanned Original Copy of School Marksheet or school leaving certificate or
School/College Bonafide certificate
c) Scanned Original Copy of PAN Card
d) Scanned Original Copy of Cancelled Cheque
e) Scanned Original Copy of GST Registration Certificate (if applicable)
f) Scanned Original Copy of Address Proof (Passport / Voter ID / Aadhar
/Aadhar Update History
g) Scanned Original Copy of Employment Proof
As per Clause 20 of BCCI guidelines, it is mandate to provide Aadhar Update
History when a player is opting for presenting the Aadhar Card as proof of
address.
Since Petitioner failed to provide Aadhar Update
history, the agent of Respondent No. 2 Association has
contacted the father and sought for generation of Aadhar
Update History for uploading the same, however, the latter
refused to share the OTP which was generated and lodged false
complaints against Respondents with the police. While matters
stood thus, Respondent No. 2 received an e mail communication
from an ID named "SAVE CRICKET" ([email protected])
stating that Petitioner has two different date of birth certificates
suggesting possible age manipulation along with a copy of birth
certificate with a specific direction to Respondent No. 2 to
investigate before registering Petitioner and as per the said
direction of BCCI, Respondent No. 2 conducted investigation
and found that Petitioner has two Birth certificates dated
08.12.2009 registered on 10.12.2009 and another certificate by
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation with a date of birth
as 08.02.2009 and the date of registration as 17.02.2009 and
registration of Petitioner was kept on hold as such he is
prevented from playing matches and it is also the case of
Respondents 2 to 4 that there is a grievance redressal
mechanism in the Rules and Regulations of Respondent No.2
and any stakeholders having grievance against the Association
shall approach the Ombudsman and since there is an
alternative remedy, Writ Petition is not maintainable under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no coercion by
Respondents 2 to 4 much less with an intent to compromise
Petitioner's data security nor there is an insistence/exerting
undue influence for the provisions of the said data and the
allegation that Respondent No. 2 - Association is trying to
misuse Petitioner's private data, is in violation of the provisions
of the Aadhar Act, 2016.
The on line registration guidelines issued by BCCI
dated 09.08.2024, registration of player was mandated to be
made on line and accordingly, players who had provided the
Aadhar as proof of residence/address were to provide Aadhar
updated history. While stating so, Respondent No. 2 avers that
Aadhar update history is the only source of information which
reflects as to the modification of Aadhar data in the relevant
point of time which not only authenticates the actual Date of
Birth of the individual but also reflects if the individual has
modified his date of birth in the past and that BCCI had made it
mandatory for the provision of Aadhar Update History to
confirm the Date of Birth of the individual applicant as such
Aadhar Update history is mandatory document to be provided
for confirming the Date of Birth of the individual; while stating
so, a contra pleading is also taken by Respondent No. 2 wherein
it is admitted that there is no mention of Aadhar OTP
Verification as it was not a mandatory yet the Aadhar card
requires Aadhar Update History which is not provided by
Petitioner.
Respondent No. 2 admits that Petitioner underwent
TW-3 Bone test, however, remains silent about the details of the
test. It is a categorical case in the counter of Respondent No. 2
that Aadhar OTP Verification is not a process for confirming the
eligibility of the applicant (Petitioner) but only it was to help him
in completing the Application. It has nothing to do with the
eligibility of Petitioner or judging his capability as a player.
Clause 20 of the BCCI Guidelines clearly specifies the Aadhar as
proof of address and the same shall be provided by Aadhar
History and seeking of Aadhar OTP is not a mandate and that
the same was sought with the consent of Petitioner and
application of Petitioner was put on hold only due to the reason
that Petitioner has two Date of birth certificates which are
nothing but a proof of manipulating his age for the sake of
claiming a position in the team and absolute deprivation of
rights of other candidates.
6. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Sports and Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Standing
Counsel for HCA.
7. Both the parties have relied upon the guidelines
issued by the BCCI. Important aspect of the said guidelines is
extracted hereunder:
"It is hereby clarified that:
Under 16 boys' eligibility is determined on the basis of TW3 method of
skeletal maturity and Under 19 boys' eligibility is determined on the
basis of Chronological Age only. In the event a player's chronological age
is deemed indeterminable, the player will have to undergo further
medical test as advised by the BCCI."
8. The above content in the guideline is unambiguous
and the language shows that TW3 test report will decide the age
determination of a player and not the contents and details of
Aadhar Card are not conclusive and cannot be the deciding
factor of age determination for the players who are in the age
category of under -16. Proforma of the player registration form
shows the documents that are required for the players (Men and
Women) to participate in BCCI tournaments (Junior and Senior)
for Season 2024-25 is also incorporated. From the above, it is
very clear that Aadhar and its update history is for the purpose
of residential proof and nothing more can be inferred.
9. Clause 20 mentions about usage of AADHAR card
as proof of residence.
" 20. Aadhaar Card as a proof of residence
We shall accept Aadhaar Card also as a proof of residence to
consider a cricketer as local of that Association, subject to the following
conditions:
Aadhaar should be issued, on or before 01.09.2023 bearing
address within jurisdictions of the Association that player intends to
play for 2024-25 season.
The players will have to generate their Aadhaar card history,
simply by visiting the below link:
https://resident.uidai.gov.in/aadhar-updatehistory
Once you click onto the above link, please enter your 12-
digit UID no. mentioned on the Aadhaar card & enter your Security
code.
Click on Send OTP button you will receive 6-digit OTP no.
on your registered mobile no. Type OTP received and click onto submit
button.
It will take you to a page, where the history of your Aadhaar
Card will be seen."
The object and intent of Clause 20 is clear that
Respondent No.2 cannot demand Aadhar OTP from the players
seeking registration with BCCI and even otherwise, Aadhaar
history cannot be a proof of determining the age of the player
seeking registration and TW3 test is the basis for determining
the age of the player who is below the age of 16 years.
10. Now it is necessary to look into the byelaws of
Respondent No.2 Association. Though a copy of byelaws is not
filed in this Writ Petition, during the course of hearing, in the
batch of Writ Petitions filed against HCA, a copy of byelaws
forms part of the record in Writ Petition No.35139 of 2024 and
the same is being considered for the adjudication of this lis.
11. It is apparent on the face of the record that on
behalf of the petitioner e mails were extended during the period
04.10.2024 to 10.10.2024. It is also an admitted fact that,
Crime No. 955 of 2024 was registered at the instance of father of
Petitioner against Respondent No. 2 and its representatives.
During pendency of Writ Petition, father of Petitioner had issued
the letter dated 16.11.2024 to the Secretary of Respondent No.2
informing that as per the instructions of Commissioner of Police
and the outcome of the discussions between father of Petitioner
and Respondent No. 2, he had issued to withdraw all petitions
and accordingly, he had intimated Respondent No. 2 for
withdrawing cases registered by Jagdhgirigutta Police Station
and Cyber Crime PS. and said letter was acknowledged by the
Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime so also by Jagdhgirigutta Police
Station and in view of an amicable settlement, cases can be
closed. While matters stood thus, Petitioner filed additional
documents during the course of hearing, wherein father of
Petitioner had produced Death Certificate of Baby Terli Shiva
Ramakrishna showing the date of death as 01.08.2009 and
there is an e mail specifically addressed to Respondent No. 4,
CEO dated 14.10.2024 to evident that documents as sought by
Respondent No. 2 i.e. HCA have been attached and there is no
rebuttal to this e mail. On perusal of the said e mail,
attachments are clearly reflected. The aforesaid e mail is
followed up by issuance of another e mail dated 07.11.2024
addressed to Secretary of Respondent No. 2 requesting to
sharing of information inter alia SAVE CRICKET. Admittedly
there is no response from Secretary of Respondent No. 2
Association. On 16.11.2024, an e mail was addressed to
Secretary of Respondent No. 2 and the relevant portion is
extracted hereunder:
"To, Secretary
Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA)
Uppal, Hyderabad
1, T. Sivannaidu, father of Shiva Rama Krishna u16 cricket player. Humbly
submit the following few lines for your kind consideration.
I was called by the commissioner of police, Hyderabad for enquiry of a
petition, After hearing my grievances, CP Sir advised me to meet the
secretary of HCA to explain the facts relating to my son. As per the
instructions of the Commissioner of Police (CP), Hyderabad, I met with
the Secretary, HCA today, on 16.11.2024, after obtaining prior permission. I
explained my grievances and emotional actions in front of the CEO to the
Secretary.
I sincerely apologize for any hurt or offence caused to Sri Suneel Kante
(CEO), Sri Ravi Kumar Reddy and others. I understand that emotions drove
my actions, and I regret any personal allegations made.
I am committed to withdrawing all petitions, including the Writ Petition (WP).
I am confident that this matter can be amicably resolved.
I request your acceptance of my apology and closure of all pending matters in
HCA relating to my son Shiva Rama Krishna, U16 cricket player
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. copy to CEO sir Suneel
Kante.
Sincerely,
Terli Sivan Naidu
8309723907"
12. Considering all the documents and pleadings of the
contesting parties, the point for adjudication is whether the
demand for sharing of Aadhar OTP verification or refusal to
share Aadhar OTP verification, Petitioner can be deprived of his
right to play/participate in the tournaments being conducted
and to be conducted by the Respondent No.2 and by the BCCI?.
13. In this regard, Circular No. 8 of 2023 issued by
UIDAI plays a crucial role in the present lis.
Subject: Accepting Aadhaar as a proof of Date of Birth (DoB) regarding.
It has been observed that AUA KUAs are considering and accepting Aadhaar
card/-Aadhaar as one of the acceptable documents for proof of
Date of Birth (DOB)
2. In this regard, a is pertinent to mention that, Aadhaar is a unique 12 digit
ID issued to a resident after he/she undergoes the enrolment process by
submitting his/her demographic and biometric information. Once a resident
is assigned an Aadhaar number, it can be used to authenticate the resident
through various modes as prescribed under Aadhaar Act, 2016 und
Regulations framed there under.
3. At the time of enrolment/updation, UIDAI records DoB as claimed by the
resident, on the basis of the documents submitted by them, as specified
under the list of supporting documents for Aadhaar enrolment, provided on
the UIDAI website (https://uidai.gov.in/images/commdoc/26 JAN 2023
Aadhaar List of documents English.pdf). Further, it is to be noted that
Regulations 10(4) and 19A of the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update)
Regulations, 2016, mention that verification of the enrolment and update
data shall be performed as provided in Schedule III
4. In this regard, attention is drawn towards Office Memorandum dated
20.12.2018 issued by Meity through UIDAI, wherein it has been stated that
"An Aadhaar number can be used for establishing identity of an individual
subject to authentication and thereby, per se its not a proof of date of birth"
(copy enclosed).
5. This aspect of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 has been
reiterated/highlighted/stressed upon by different High Courts in recent
judgments. The most recent one is given by the Hon'ble High Court of
Bombay, in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Unique Identification
Authority of india And Ors. dated 28.07.2023 (copy enclosed)
6. In view of the above, it is required that use of Aadhaar, as a proof of DoB
needs to be deleted from the list of acceptable documents.
7. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
Encl.: As above.
14. Respondent No. 2 or its representatives cannot
demand for sharing OTP generated in respect of Petitioner's
Aadhar card under all or any circumstances and for whatever
reason. More so, Circular No. 8 is very categorical to show that
the demand made by Respondent No. 2 even for registration of
player under the guise of facilitating players for registration of
player with BCCI sharing of OTP is not mandatory. Further,
Respondent No.2 cannot deny the fact and it is unrebutted fact
that Petitioner had already undergone TW3 test and passed the
said test and the report is in the custody of Respondent No.2.
Even for remote understanding of circumstances from the
perspective of Respondent No.2 facilitating registration of player
with BCCI, Respondent No.2 shall rely and consider TW3 Test
examination report for ascertaining the age of a player. And this
is the stand taken by the BCCI in the High Courts in Delhi and
Madhya Pradesh, which are extracted hereunder:
ORDER IN W.P.NO.22375/2024, DATED 19.12.2024
1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the
petitioner has challenged the communication dated 22.04.2024 issued by the
Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association whereby he has been directed to get
declaration from competent Court of law as regards his death of birth.
2. Earlier the petitioner had preferred an application before respondent No.1
for enrollment. Along with the same he had submitted an Aadhar Card in
which his date of birth was recorded as 26.07.2004. The same was in
variance to his date of birth recorded in the other documents submitted by
him hence explanation was called for by respondent No.1 from him as
regards his date of birth pursuant to which he submitted an affidavit on
25.01.2024 annexing therewith his new Aadhar Card in which his date of
birth was recorded as 15.10.2006. On the basis of the same the impugned
communication has been issued to the Petitioner.
3. An Aadhar Card is not a proof of date of birth though the same may be
used as corroborative for the said purpose. The primary document as regards
date of birth would always be the scholar register. In the scholar register of
the petitioner of Gyansagar Vidya Niketan where he had studied his date of
birth is recorded as 15.10.2006. Even in all the marksheets/certificates of
the school the same date of birth has been mentioned. In the Birth
Certificate issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of
Planning, Economics and Statistics on 13.09.2022 his date of birth has been
recorded as 15.10.2006.
4. Thus, merely in view of discrepancy of the date of birth as recorded in the
old and new Aadhar Card of the petitioner there was no justification on part
of respondent No.1 to issue the impugned communication to the petitioner.
5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the date of birth of
the petitioner is 15.10.2006 as is recorded in his new Aadhar Card and not
26.07.2004 which was recorded in his previous Aadhar Card.
6. The petition is accordingly disposed off.
Board of Control for Cricket In India v. Aryan Sehrawat
(2015 SCC OnLine Del 12213)
G. ROHINI, C.J.: Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short 'BCCI)
preferred these two appeals aggrievedly the common order passed by the
learned Single Judge dated 20.12.2013 disposing of W.P. (C) Nos. 5284/2013
and 5283/2013 with the following directions:
"13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions are disposed of
with direction to the respondents to verify the genuineness and authenticity
of the documents filed by the petitioners as proof of their respective date of
birth, within four weeks from today. If such verification, the respondents find
that the aforesaid documents are genuine documents, they would record the
date of birth of the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 5284/2013 as 27.2.1998 and
that of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5283/2013 as 3.10.1996 in their
database and accordingly consider them for playing in the tournaments for
which they are found to be eligible, taking their date of birth to be 27.2.1998
and 3.10.1996 respectively."
2. The respondents herein/writ petitioners desired to participate in Under-16
Tournaments organized by BCCI in the year 2012-2013 in which those who
are born on or after 01.09.1996 were eligible to participate. However, in the
age determination test conducted through Tanner-White House 3 (TW3)
method, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5284/2013 was determined to be 16
years and 2 months as on 01.09.2012. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P. (C)
No. 5283/2013 was determined as 16 years and 5 months on the said date.
Though the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5283/2013 was held eligible to play in
Under-16 Team giving him the benefit of six months, the petitioner in W.P.
(C) No. 5284/2013 was held ineligible to participate. It is claimed by the writ
petitioners that a s per the birth certificates issued to the writ petitioners
under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, transfer certificates
issued by the schools where the petitioners studied as well as the Passports,
the date of birth of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No 5284/2013 is 27.02.1998
and the date of birth of petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5283/2013 is 03.10.1996
and thus both of them were within the age limit prescribed and were eligible
to participate in the tournament. Therefore, assailing the action of BCCI in
declaring them ineligible to participate on the basis of the age determined by
TW3 method, the petitioners filed W.P. (C) Nos. 5284/2013 and 5283/2013.
3. The writ petitions were contested by BCCI pleading that bone age test
being conducted for age verification of the players by TW3 method has been
recognized as the most authenticated and scientific method by various
National sporting Federations in India as well as international sports bodies;
that prevention of age manipulation for competent advantage is of the factors
underlying the Age Verification Program of BCCI to contain the menace of
manipulation of birth certificates which is rampant in South Asia; that the
age testing process by GP method (Greulich-Pyle method) which was being
followed by the Associations earlier had accuracy rate of+/-2(tw o years,
where as the TW3 method has the accuracy rate of +/- 6 (six) months; that
the age determination by TW3 method was adopted in accordance with the
directions of this Court d a ted 11.10.2013 in CM No. 14211/2013 In W.P.
(C) No. 612/2011 titled Lokniti Foundation v. Union of India.
4. Rejecting the contentions of the respondents, the learned Single Judge
opined that it would be highly unreasonable and unfair to the players if
despite submitting authentic and genuine documents they are denied
opportunity to play in a tournament meant for their age group merely
because in the medical opinion their age could be more than 16 years.
Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of with the above- noticed
directions observing as under:
"10. In my view, though there can be no objection to the respondents
subjecting a person seeking to play in a tournament meant for a particular
age group to TW3 test for the purpose of verification of his age, but, if on
such determination, and after giving benefit of margin of error up to six
months on either side, it is found that the age so determined was resulting in
the person concerned being held ineligible to playin a tournament, the
respondents should also take into consideration the documentary evidence, if
any, produced by him as proof of his age. If the documents submitted by
such a person are found to be authentic and genuine, the respondents would
not be justified in giving preference to the age determined through use of
TW3 method over the age as reflected in such unimpeachable documentary
evidence. While determining the age of such a person, the respondents would
also be entitled to ask him to produce such other evidence as they may feel
necessary and appropriate in a given case. If a person seeking to play in such
a tournament does not produce documentary evidence which should be
available or can be obtained by him, the respondents would be justified in
relying upon the age determined through TW3 method and ignoring the
documents produced by him. If, however, such a person produces all such
documents which he could be reasonably expected to produce as a proof of
his age and such documentary evidence establishes the age claimed by him,
the respondents would not be justified in discarding such documentary
evidence and relying upon the determination of age through the use of TW3
method."
5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeals are
filed by BCCI contending inter alia that the learned Single Judge ought not to
have interfered in the policy matter of BCCI policy matter of BCCI
particularly in the absence of challenge to the policy of the Age Verification
Programme of BCCI by the petitioners. On the other hand, it is contended by
the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners that the order under
appeal does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this
Court.
6. As could be seen from the material available on record, from 01.04.2010,
the Ministry of Sports, Government of India adopted a National Code Against
Age Frauds in Sports (NCAAFS). The said Code set out the procedure for
medical examination by medical and scientific testing param o un t which
are to be conducted by Sports Authority of India and National Sports
Federations. The Working Committee of BCCI at its meeting held on
12.05.2012 in Chennai resolved to adopt the TW3 policy for all future BCCI
Under-16 age group tournaments and the same was communicated to the
concerned radiology centres inviting them to be partners in the process. The
details of how the test was to be conducted were also conveyed. The BCCI
also conveyed to the affiliated State Cricket Associations the AVP Rules and
Regulations of BCCI which are to be followed for all Under-16 players. The
said AVP became effective from 01.09.2012.
7. It is also relevant to note that BCCI is the governing body for the sport of
cricket in India. The Age Verification Programme has been undertaken by
BCCI to ensure a level playing field for competitive participation of players in
its age group tournaments by ensuring competition only between players of
similar skeletal maturity.
8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellant/BCCI, the
petitioners never challenged the policy of BCCI to adopt a scientific method of
determination of the age. It is not in dispute that, BCCI was earlier adopting
GP method which is also one of the bone age testing methods for
determination of the age of players. From 01.09.2012 onwards, the BBCI has
started adopting TW3 method in the place of GP method since TW3 method
is found to be more authenticated scientific method all over the world. The
fact that all the participants in Under-16 tournaments are subjected to the
age determination test by TW-3 method is also not in dispute.
9. Under these circumstances the policy decision taken by BCCI for adopting
TW -3 method for age determination of the participants in Under-16
Tournaments cannot be held to be based on either irrational or extraneous
criterion. The decision of BCCI, according to us, stands to the test of
reasonableness and under no circumstances can be held to be against public
interest. The law is well-settled that such a decision does not warrant
interference under Article 226 merely because it is possible to take a different
view.
10. We are also of the view that BCCI cannot be expected to have the method
of verification of genuineness of documents which are given a s proof of age
by the players from all over the country. Evidently, the bone age test adopted
by BCCI is to avoid discrimination between the players and to ensure a level
playing field in age group tournaments. It may be added that even the
petitioners did not raise any objection to the procedure/method of age
determination being adopted by BCCI and had voluntarily subjected
themselves to the age determination test by TW3 method conducted by BCCI.
Merely because the age determined by TW3 method did not tally with the
birth certificates and other documents produced by the petitioners, they
cannot now turn around and seek a mandamus directing BCCI to rely upon
the birth.
11. Having regard to the admitted fact that BCCI has been adopting the
scientific method of bone age test for age determination of players for all
Under-16 tournaments for the past several years and that the petitioners
were very well aware of the said fact and particularly in view of the
undisputed fact that all the players participated in the Under - 16
tournaments in the year 2012 - 2013 were subjected to age determination
test by TW3 method, the impugned action of BCCI cannot be held to be
arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the interference by this Court
under Article 226 is not warranted and no mandamus can be issued
compelling BCCI to adopt a different method for age determination of the writ
petitioners.
13. Accordingly, the order u appeal is set aside and the writ petitions shall
14. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.
15. In the pleadings filed on behalf of Respondent No.
2, there is total silence about TW3 report being in the custody of
Respondent No. 2. Thereby, it can be safely concluded that age
of Petitioner shall be in accordance with TW3 examination
report unconnected with the disputed birth certificates and the
said certificates are of no significance for the simple reason that
even if the said certificates are considered, Petitioner is below 16
years of age. Thereby, it can be safely concluded that petitioner
is eligible for being registered in U16 tournaments to be
conducted by BCCI and HCA. Further, for unexplained reasons
and circumstances for not placing TW3 report of Petitioner on
record in the present writ petition by Respondent No.2 adverse
inference has to be drawn against Respondent No.2 and its
representatives and office bearers more specifically Respondent
No.4, who is the administrative head of Respondent No.2 vide
Rules 23 and 24 of the Rules and Regulations of the Respondent
No.2. The Court is of the firm conclusion that whole exercise
which led to filing of the present Writ Petition is at the instance
of Respondent No.4 which act of Respondent No.4 is not bona
fide and is by design.
16. The acts of Respondents 2 and 4 and the way the
demands were made by Respondent No. 2 for sharing OTP late
in the evening from the parents of players is pricking the minds
of this Court. In the instant case on hand, neither the Rules and
Regulations of Respondent No.2 nor the guidelines of BCCI
specify that Aadhar card and its history is the genesis for
verification of birth certificates. Respondent No. 2, at one breath
states that the purpose of Aadhar card registration is only for
the proof of residence and not for verification of birth of the
player. However, a contra pleading and stand is taken that
Aadhar history of player is a proof of verification of birth of a
player which is contra to the requirements of BCCI guidelines.
Guideline No.20 of BCCI is very categorical and is specifying
that the role of Aadhar card and Aadhar history is only for
ascertainment of proof of residence and not the verification of
birth certificate/details of birth of a player. Furthermore, in the
guidelines of BCCI, it is categorical that BCCI's requirement is
the Birth Certificate that is generated through computer
(Computer generated Birth Certificate) and not the birth
certificate/details as mentioned in Aadhar History. Thus, the
act of Respondent No. 2 and the exercise taken by it on a
random complaint that was given by an anonymous person,
without verifying the genuinety of the source of information of
the complaint, had straightaway attacked the entitlement of
Petitioner for registration and in participating in the
tournaments of Respondent No.2 and that of BCCI is nothing
short of high handedness of Respondent No.2 and its officials in
particular Respondent No.4.
17. Respondent No. 2, on receipt of information or
directions from BCCI to investigate into the matter of Petitioner,
should have issued a show cause notice calling upon him to
explain his stand and should have followed the procedure
stipulated under the rules and regulation, more specifically Rule
41 - Grievance Mechanism. The said clause mandates that in
the event of taking any action against any player, Respondent
No. 2 shall comply with the requirements of the procedure
envisaged in the said Rule and in specific Rule 41(c). On the
face of the record, the procedure stipulated in the Rule 41 is not
followed in the instant case. That apart under Rule 41 it is the
Apex Council of the Respondent No.2 which is empowered pass
necessary orders and not certainly by the Respondent No. 2 to
4. Thus, the Petitioner is robbed off the right of hearing by
submitting his explanation on being show caused. At this
juncture, it is need take into consideration of the conduct of the
Respondent No. 2 to 4 in overreaching the Interim Orders of this
court dated 06.11.2024 in not allowing the Petitioner in
participate in the tournaments pending disposal of the present
writ petition and this also speaks volumes about the respect
and integrity of the Respondent No. 2 towards the judicial
process and system.
18. Looking from any perspective, the conduct of
Respondent No. 2 in refusing to register/withholding
registration of petitioner with BCCI, is not in accordance with
rules and regulations and is in complete violation of Principles
of natural justice and preventing him from participating in the
tournaments (ongoing) being conducted by Respondent No.2
and BCCI.
19. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Respondent No.2 is directed to register Petitioner with BCCI and
also with Respondent No.2 as is the case and shall allow him to
participate in all the tournaments of Respondent No.2 and
BCCI, basing on TW3 report without relying upon the Aadhaar
Card history and other documents. No costs.
20. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
03rd April 2025
ksld
