Sanchit Bhandari v. Roller Skating Federation of India and Anr

9. It is pointed out that performance in the Italy Games 2024 was to serve as a qualification criterion for the purpose of participation in the Chengdu Games 2025. It was clearly mentioned that thirty-six (36) senior athletes “will earn their quotas” based on performance in the Italy Games.

10. As a matter of fact, in the Italy Games 2024, the petitioner secured tenth rank amongst all the athletes participating in ‘Speed Slalom - senior ranked men’. The ranking list is reproduced as under:

11. It is pointed out that amongst the top ten athletes, three athletes were from China, who already had been pre-allocated quota, being from the host country of the Chengdu Games, 2025. Also, 2 out of the 3 athletes from Iran earned their quota (there being a cap of 2 quotas for athletes from any single country). As such, the petitioner emerged as the sixth quota earning athlete and therefore fulfilled the criteria for participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025, by virtue of his performance in the Italy Games, 2024. In the circumstances, it is urged that the petitioner stood automatically qualified for the purpose of the Chengdu Games, 2025.

12. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that despite the aforesaid, respondent no.1 has now sought to undertake selection trials for the purpose of selecting athletes for the purpose of participation in the Chengdu Games,

2025. For the purpose of the said selection trials, the Respondent No. 1 has prescribed the eligibility as “Medallists of last year’s national championship and participants of the 2024 World Skate Games in Italy”.

13. The trials were initially scheduled for 11.02.2025 to 12.02.2025 at Mohali, Chandigarh. However, during the course of proceedings on 10.02.2025, this Court had taken on record the statement of the learned counsel for respondent no.1 that the selection trials will be rescheduled/postponed by a period of two weeks. The said order reads as under:

14. In the circumstances, the selection trials, scheduled by the respondent no.1 are yet to begin.

15. It is the case of the petitioner that there has been gross violation of petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the action of the respondent no.1 in subjecting the petitioner to fresh/ repeated selection trials, despite securing a quota by virtue of his performance in the Italy Games, 2024 is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the qualification criteria set out in the aforesaid bulletin issued by ‘World Skate’. It is submitted that the said bulletin sets out a fair and judicious methodology for selection of athletes for the purpose of participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025. It is urged that subjecting the petitioner to another round of selection trials, would be onerous and prejudicial to the petitioner, especially considering the nature of sport. It is further submitted out that it was the respondent no.1’s own understanding that the best performing Indian athletes in Italy Games, 2024 would be given a chance to represent India in the Chengdu Games, 2025.

16. Learned counsel of the petitioner also draws attention to the fact that apart from performance in the Italy Games, 2024, participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025 could also be earned by virtue of participation in the World Games Series, Hong Kong, 2024 (‘hereinafter referred to as Hong Kong Games, 2024’). However, for the purpose of Hong Kong Games, 2024, no selection trial was conducted by the respondent no.1. It is submitted that, instead, the second-best performing athlete from India in the Italy Games, 2024, i.e., Mr. Jinesh Nanal was automatically selected to represent the country in World Games 2025.

17. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks that the respondent/s be directed to register the petitioner for participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025 in “Speed Slalom – Senior Ranked Men” category. It is further prayed that since the petitioner has already qualified for participation in the said event by virtue of his performance in the Italy Games, 2024, the respondents be refrained from undertaking any fresh selection trials for the purpose of participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025.

18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the respondent no.1 being the National Sports Federation is responsible for conducting selection trials for all international events/national championships and was also responsible for conducting the selection trials for the participation in Italy Games, 2024.

19. It is further submitted that five months have already passed since the Italy Games, 2024 were held and given the time gap between the aforesaid event, and the ensuing Chengdu Games, 2025, a fresh trial would help to evaluate the latest performance and select the best possible athlete to represent the country.

20. In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent no.1, a tabular chart has also been set out seeking to compare the performance of the petitioner with the other athlete (viz. Mr. Jinesh Nanal), who had participated along with the petitioner at the Italy Games, 2024. The said table is reproduced as under: Championship Jinesh Nanal Sanchit Bhandari (petitioner) Current World Ranking (Speed Slalom Senior Ranked Men) 10th 63rd 62nd National Championships held in December 2024 1st Place (Gold Medal) 3rd Place (Bronze Medal) World Skate Games held in September 2024 13th Place th Place 61st National Championships held in December 2023 1st No Medal Place 19th Asian Championships held in October 2023 8th Place th Place Asian Games held in October Qualified Not Qualified

21. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 further submits that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the petitioner participates in the selection trials proposed to be held by the respondent no.1. In case the petitioner emerges as the best athlete in the proposed selection trials, he will necessarily have the right to participate in the ensuing Chengdu Games,

2025.

22. It is refuted that the petitioner has already earned his participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025 by virtue of his participation in the Italy Games,

2024. Reliance is placed on a communication dated 01.10.2024, issued by the World Skate body to contend that the performance of the petitioner in the Italy Games, 2024 resulted in the country gaining a quota rather than the petitioner being selected for participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025.

23. Mr. Ruchir Mishra, learned counsel for Ministry of Sports states that it is for the concerned federation to take a decision as regards the selection process which has to be followed for the purpose of selection of athletes in an international event.

24. Having considered the contentions of respective counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The reasons are as under:

(i) The petitioner earned a berth for participation in the Italy Games,

2024 on account of his performance in the selection process for the same, held by the respondent no.1 in April, 2024 at Chandigarh. Further, it was on account of sheer dint of performance of the petitioner in the Italy Games, 2024 that he earned a berth/quota for himself and for the country in the Chengdu Games, 2025. But for the performance of the petitioner in the Italy Games, 2024, there would have been no scope for participation of any athlete from India in the Chengdu Games, 2025. In fact, as noticed, the petitioner invested significant resource of his own for the purposes of participation in the Italy Games, 2024. Thus, it would be wholly unfair, at this stage, after the petitioner has excelled in the Italy Games, 2024 and earned a slot for himself and for the country, to subject the petitioner to another round of selection trials where the petitioner would be competing with those athletes who did not perform as well as the petitioner in the selection trials held in April, 2024 (prior to the Italy Games, 2024) and in the Italy Games, 2024.

(ii) The petitioner has already undergone the rigors of participating in the selection process leading up to the Italy Games, 2024. From the bulletin issued by ‘World Skate’, it is evident that the performance in the Italy Games, 2024 was to serve as a spring board for participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025. The said bulletin records in unmistakable terms as under: “The thirty-six (36) senior athletes selected to participate in TWG Chengdu 2025 will earn their quotas through any of the following

(24) quotas in September 2024.:

Each National Federation will be able to obtain a maximum of eight (8) quotas: ● Speed Slalom - Two (2) female quotas ● Speed Slalom - Two (2) male quotas ● Classic Slalom - Two (2) female quotas ● Classic Slalom - Two (2) male quotas” Thus, the Italy Games, 2024 were virtually in the nature of a ‘selection trial’ to select 24 out of the 36 athletes for the purpose of participation in Chengdu Games, 2025. The petitioner, being one of the athletes from India, based on his performance in the Italy Games, earned his participation in Chengdu Games, 2025. In these circumstances, there is inherent prejudice if the petitioner is compelled to be subject to another round of selection process. This is especially so since, as already noted, there would be have been no occasion for any athlete from India to participate in the Chengdu Games, 2025, but for the petitioner’s performance in the Italy Games,

2024.

(iii) Just as participation in the Italy Games, 2024 serves as a spring board for participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025, the participation in the Hong Kong Games, 2024 was also to serve as an avenue for earning a berth in the Chengdu Games, 2025. This is also evident from the above extracted portion of the bulletin issued by “World Skate”. For the purpose of participation in the Hong Kong Games, 2024, there was never any doubt that it would be the second best performing Indian athlete in the Italy Games, 2024, who would be entitled to participate in the Hong Kong Games, 2024. In fact, learned counsel for the respondent points out that the invitation for the Hong Kong Games, 2024 came in the name of the said athlete. The same demonstrates that in terms of the aforesaid bulletin of “World Skate” there was no scope for the respondent no.1 to hold any selection trial for the purpose of determining which Indian athlete would participate in the Hong Kong Games, 2024. Likewise, at this stage, there is no scope for conducting a fresh selection trial process for the purpose of participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025.

(vi) Learned counsel for the respondent has sought to emphasize that the ranking of the other Indian athlete who participated in the Italy Games, 2024 (Mr. Jinesh Nanal) is much better than that of the petitioner and therefore, the said athlete as also other Indian athlete/s deserves to get a chance for being considered for participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025. The said argument is fallacious. It is the matter of record that the petitioner’s selection for participation in Italy Games, 2024 was not gratuitous but was based on performance in the selection trials that were held prior to the Italy Games, 2024. Further, the petitioner opened the door for his (and thereby the country’s) participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025 on account of his performance in the Italy Games, 2024. The said door cannot be shut to the petitioner at this stage, nor can the petitioner be expected to compete with the very athlete/s who he out-performed in the Italy Games, 2024. It would be quite incongruous to allow other athletes (including the second best performing Indian athlete in Italy Games,

2024) to vie for the berth/quota earned by the petitioner for the Chengdu Games, 2025. It would also be in the teeth of the stipulation laid down in the aforesaid bulletin of “World Skate” which contemplates that “selection” of senior athletes for the purpose of participation in the Chengdu Games, 2025, and thereby earning of country quota/s, would be based on performance in the Italy Games,

2024.

25. The petitioner having out-performed the other Indian athlete/s, who participated in Italy Games, 2024 (Mr. Jinesh Nanal), it is futile to contend that the said athlete (whom the petitioner outperformed in the Italy Games,

2024) enjoys a higher ranking, as compared to the petitioner.

26. A judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. 2016: DHC: 4734 has recognized the right of an athlete to represent the country in the event for which the said athlete has secured the berth, by virtue of his/her performance in the qualifying games. It was held that same is neither perverse nor contrary to the National Sports Code of India, 2011 (hereinafter “NSCI, 2011”). In the said case, the Court was concerned with a situation where respondent no.5 therein had secured berth for India in the Olympic Games by virtue of his performance in the World Championship held prior thereto.

27. The stand of the petitioner in Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors (supra), was identical to the stand of the respondents in the present case and is recorded in the judgment as under:-

28. The Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors rejected the aforesaid contention, inter alia, holding that although the NSCI 2011 gives flexibility to a concerned National Sports Federations to decide the process of selection and when to hold a trial, it would be reasonable and fair to select the respondent no.5 therein, to represent India in the Olympic Games in the concerned sporting event. In this context it was, it was specifically noticed as under:-

It was also specifically noticed as under:- “PRACTICE THAT A WRESTLER WHO HAS EARNED THE BERTH FOR THE COUNTRY WILL REPRESENT IT, IS NEITHER PERVERSE NOR CONTRARY TO CODE, 2011.

49. The selection procedure followed by the respondent no.4-WFI i.e. the wrestler who has earned the berth for the country will represent the country, does not show any element of perversity or anomaly in the instant case as the said practice has been followed by respondent no.4- WFI uniformly and consistently.

50. The said practice cannot also said to be contrary or in violation of Code, 2011.”

29. In the present case, the concerned NSF/respondent no.1 has taken a converse position viz. that it should be allowed to conduct fresh trial even though it is the petitioner who has earned the berth for India in the Chengdu Games, 2025. This court is unable to overlook the untenability and irrationality thereof, in view of the facts and circumstances set out hereinabove.

30. In the circumstances, the present petition succeeds; the respondents are restrained from conducting any further selection trials for the purpose of participation in the World Games 2025, Chengdu, China in the “Speed Slalom – Senior Ranked Men” category. Further, the respondent no.1 is directed to register the petitioner for the purpose of participation in the World Games, 2025 Chengdu, China in the concerned event.

31. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

SACHIN DATTA, J MARCH 19, 2025/cl/sl