The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Swastika Ghosh & Anr. vs Table Tennis Federation of India & Ors. consisting of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma noted that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised in the matters relating to sports only if there is an allegation of bad faith.
Facts
The petitioners’ names were not included in the final selection list by the Selection Committee and the Committee of Administrator despite fulfilling the selection criteria as laid down by the federation. The process of the selection was not adopted correctly and the persons who have been included in the list or being proposed to be sent to participate in the commonwealth game are much below in the ranking as compared to the petitioners before this court. The credentials of the members of the Selection Committee were also challenged on the ground that some of the members are who either themselves in person or their spouse are running the academy and therefore they are not entitled to be included in the selection committee.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The Petitioners’ names should be included in the names of the panel to be sent for participating in the commonwealth games.
Respondent: This court does not have domain to enter the selection process of the selection criteria, regarding which reliance was placed on Shumel v. Union of India and Neha Rathi v. Union of India. The names have already been finalized and sent to the Indian Olympic Association on 07.06.2022. Now the Indian Olympic Association might have sent the names further. The Central Government Standing Counsel also submitted that this court does not have jurisdiction to enter into the nitty gritty of the selection process.
In rebuttal, the petitioners submitted that the names could not have been sent by the Federation in view of an order dated 16.06.2022. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 reaffirmed that names have been finalised and sent to Indian Olympic Association much before 16.06.2022.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that issuance of a writ is a discretionary remedy, and the court can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction even if the petitioner may have a claim in law.
Various judgments regarding the scope of Article 226 when it comes to sports matters were relied upon by the Court, some of them being Punjabi University vs. UOI & Ors., State of U.P. vs. Johri Mal, Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, Paralympic Committee of India vs. Naresh Kumar Sharma and Ms. Manika Batra vs. Table Tennis Federation of India through the President and Ors. to observe that if the power of judicial review was to be extended into matters such as these also, it would adversely affect the sports. Hence, the court cannot appropriate to itself a position as that of a Super Umpire or a Super Referee or in the present case to the position of Super Selector.
Judgment
The Bench noted that it should consider that the Selection Committee/Expert Committee has to take account numerous factors while taking decision of selecting sports person to represent the country, which cannot be as simple as comparing scores based on individual performances. In the present case also Committee of Administrator weighed different factors and therefore, this court finds itself unable to interfere in exercise of its power of judicial review. The Bench did not find any arbitrariness or malafide in the decision of the Committee of Administrators. Accordingly, the petitions alongwith all the pending applications were dismissed.
Case: Swastika Ghosh & Anr. vs Table Tennis Federation of India & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) 9488/2022 & CM APPL. 28331/2022
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Decided on: 20th June 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
