Sujeet and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

6. Asian Games (2018 Gold

7. World Championship (2018) Silver

8. Asian Games (2014) Silver

9. CWG (2014) Silver

10. Similarly, Respondent No.4, who is also in the World Top 10 ranking has won the following medals: S.No. Championship and Year Medal

1. World Championship (2022) Bronze

2. CWG (2022) Gold

3. Asian Championship (2021) Bronze

4. World Championship (2019) Bronze

5. Asian Games (2018) Gold

6. CWG (2018) Gold

7. CWG (2014) Gold

8. Asian Games (2014) Bronze

9. Commonwealth Wrestling Championship (2013) Silver

10. Asian Wrestling Championship (2013) Bronze

11. Regulation for Selection of Wrestles for participation in the National Coaching Camps/International Competitions reads as under: “Regulation for Selection of Wrestles for participation in the National Coaching Camps/International Competitions

1. Training/Coaching Camps As a general rule, wrestlers obtaining first fourth position (Gold, Silver & Bronze Medal winners) in the last National Wrestling Championship in the concerned style and age group will be included in the National Coaching Camp of the probables. In exceptional cases, the President, WFI may permit an international wrestler who has good track record but missed the last National Wrestling Championship for valid reasons to be admitted to the training camp for reasons to be recorded in writing. The Federation will also prepare a list of reserve wrestlers one in each weight category to be included in the training camp as a replacement in the event of a wrestler not reporting in the camp due to injury or some other reasons. Reserve list of the wrestlers will include 5th position holders in the last National Wrestling Championship. Iconic players like Olympic / World Championship medal winners and last Asian Games Gold Medal winners may be included in the camp even if they miss the National Wrestling Championship.

2. Selection Committee The Selection Committee of Wrestling Federation of India [WFI] will be chaired by the President, WFI and will be include Secretary General, WFI, one Arjuna Awardee / Dronachayara Awardee, Chief Coach and Foreign Expert of the style concerned. The President, WFI may associate another member as Associate Member of the Selection Committee from the local area where the trials are being held.

3. Periodicity of Selection Trials Selection Trial will be normally held once in 3-4 months when wrestlers will ranked No. 1 to 4 depending on the results of the trials. The Select Committee will recommend which wrestler will represent the country in which competition during the next 3-4 months keeping in view of the following considerations:  Exposure necessary for potential medal winners at the next Olympic or Asian Games.  Creation of a bench strength while giving exposures to wrestlers ranked 2 or 3 so that replacement is possible in the event No. 1 wrestlers is unable to participate in view of injury or some other reasons.  It would also be necessary to ensure that the wrestlers in younger age group are given adequate exposure. The Selection Committee will decide which wrestler will participate in which competition and no wrestler can claim as a matter of right that he should represent the country in a particular competition.  Officiation at Selection Trial will be done by qualified International Referees In case there are close bouts where the Selection Committee is of the opinion that the victory has not been decisive enough, the Selection Committee will have the liberty to have another bout between the wrestler after prescribed rest and they take final decision considering the results of both the bouts.  The bouts during Selection Trial will be videographed and UWW rules will be strictly followed.  The circular regarding the trial will give all necessary information for the wrestlers and coaches so that these complete transparency. In addition to the above, the selection trials are mandatory for the following major wrestling events: Olympic Games: The participation in the Olympic Games is based on the qualification system. According to the UWW Rules, an Olympic berth is for the country concerned and not the wrestler who might have clinched it. It means quota belongs to the country and not to a particular wrestler who represented the country in the qualification events. Hence, the Selection Committee of WFI will have the discretion to hold a trial for participation in the Olympic Games. However, it will not be compulsory that all the quota earned Wrestlers will be asked to appear in trials. And if the trials are held, the quota winner will not appear in the initial trials in that particular category, rather he/she will compete with the winner of those trials. And if the quota-winner loses the bout to the trials' winner, he/she will be given one more opportunity to keep the quota through a second bout against the same opponent. Asian Games: The Selection Trials in all weight categories are mandatory however, the Selection Committee will have the discretion to select the iconic players like medallists of Olympic / World Championship without trials provide recommendation by Chief Coach/ Foreign Expert. Commonwealth Games: The Selection Trials in all weight categories mandatory. The selection of the wrestlers will be based on the fair selection trials.” (emphasis supplied)

12. A perusal of Clause 2 & 3 of the said Regulations shows that Selection Trials are conducted keeping in view the exposure necessary for potential medal winners at the next Olympic or Asian Games, creation of a bench strength while giving exposures to wrestlers ranked 2 or 3 so that replacement is possible in the event the No. 1 wrestler is unable to participate in view of injury or some other reasons. The regulations also makes it clear that for the purpose of selection of Wrestlers for Asian Games, the Selection Committee has the discretion to select iconic players like medallists of Olympic/World Championship without trials provided there is a recommendation by Chief Coach. This discretion is not available for Olympic games and Commonwealth Games.

13. The Members who attended the meeting of the Committee on 12.07.2023 are as under: i. Mr. Bhupender Singh Bajwa, Member-Ad-hoc Committee ii. Ms. Suma Shirur, Member-Ad-hoc Committee [Dronacharya Awardee] iii. Mr. Gian Singh, Technical Expert, Ad-hoc Committee [Dhyanchand Awardee] iv. Mr. Ashok Garg, Technical Expert, Ad-hoc Committee [Arjuna Awardee] v. Mr. Jagmander Singh, Chief Coach, FS [Arjuna & Dronacharya Awardee] vi. Mr. Hargobind Singh, Chief Coach, GR

14. The unanimous decision taken by the Committee on 12.07.2023 not to expose Respondents No.3 & 4, who have been termed as elite athletes, to injuries during trials cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. It is nobody’s case that Respondent No.3 & 4 are not well known in their respective categories. In fact, both the athletes are in the World Top 10 rankings and, therefore, the categorisation of these athletes as elite athletes also cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary.

15. The short question which, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether this Court should exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and set aside the decision taken by the Ad-hoc Committee of the WFI in exempting Respondents No. 3 & 4 from undergoing selections trials for the forthcoming Asian Games or not.

16. The Status Report filed by the Respondent No.2 indicates that the Members of the Selection Committee includes imminent persons who are connected with the field of wrestling and have won Dhyanchand and Dronacharya Awards have taken a decision to exempt Respondents No.3 & 4 from selection trials for the categories in question and have selected them directly on the basis of their performance in the world wrestling events to represent the country in the forthcoming Asian Games. It is further stated in the Status Report that the Committee has also taken the unanimous decision to hold trials for the categories in question only to create a bench strength so that in case Respondents No.3 or 4 are not able to participate in their respective categories due to any reason then the wrestlers from the bench can replace them, if it is permitted by the games authorities. In view of the Status Report and the affidavit filed by WFI this Court is not giving credence to the alleged e-mails and the newspaper cuttings relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is well settled that Courts cannot place reliance on newspaper cuttings and e-mails etc. which do not always portray the correct picture.

17. It is well settled that writ courts must not substitute their opinions to the opinions arrived at by the experts unless the court is satisfied that the decision taken by the experts is perverse or illegal. The function of the Court is only to see that the decision has been arrived at in a good faith and the experts have acted reasonably. It is not the function of the courts to sit in judgment over the decision arrived at by the experts, if the said decision has been taken in good faith and is not perverse, as it would be risky for the Courts to tread an unknown path while upsetting such decisions.

18. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shumel v. Union of India and Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4706, has observed as under:

19. The said judgment has been quoted with approval in Sushil Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3660, wherein it was once again held that a writ court will not interfere in exercise of discretion of National Sports Federation and substitute its own judgment except where discretion is shown to have been exercised in an arbitrary or capricious or perverse manner or contrary to settled principles or practices. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “41. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that a writ Court will not interfere in the exercise of discretion of the National Sports Federation and substitute its own judgment except where the discretion is shown to have been exercised in an arbitrary or capricious or perverse manner or contrary to settled principles or practices.”

20. In a latest judgment in Swastika Ghosh v. Table Tennis Federation of India, (2022) 4 HCC (Del) 213, a co-ordinate bench of this Court, after considering various decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, has observed as under:

8. It is a settled proposition of law 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. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter pertaining to conferring of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Trophy was discussed by this Court in Punjabi University v. Union of India [Punjabi University v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3496] and it was inter alia held as under:

13. The court must resist adopting a one-size-fitsall approach. In other words, any one single performance at one competition or trial cannot be used as a barometer to make the decision of whether to select an athlete. In sports, as the impugned order also notes, same players perform differently on different occasions and a number of factors influence an athlete's performance. Therefore, the petitioner's performance at the court ordered trial cannot, by and of itself, be considered sufficient to warrant his selection for particular events. The Committee has to take a broader view and analyse the performances of the athletes/sportspersons over different competitions and trials. As such therefore, the court does not find any infirmity with the reasoning of the Committee, insofar as all events other than R-7 are concerned (to which we will turn subsequently).

14. This Court is conscious that the Committee has to consider a wide variety of other factors, including logistical and practical considerations, in selecting athletes. For instance, age is a pertinent consideration; in order to promote budding talent and to ensure that through exposure over periods of time athletes become better prepared and in turn are likelier to win medals for the country, the Committee has found it necessary to give younger athletes a chance over some older athletes. This could for example explain preferring Avani, who is 16 years old, over the petitioner for event R-6 for the 2018 Al Ain Championship, even though the petitioner had a higher score than her in the 61st NSC in the said event. However, in the 2018 Al Ain Championship, Avani's score was higher than all the other athletes (even when compared to the petitioner's performance in the court ordered trial), and that too by a significant margin, thereby in some ways justifying the Committee's decision to send her over the petitioner.

16. Though the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very wide but it has to be used with circumspection. The names in the present case have been finalised by the Committee of Administrators appointed by this Court in Manika Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India [Manika Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4479] vide judgment dated 11-2-2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners have taken this Court through the findings of the Committee of Administrators. A bare perusal of the findings of the Committee of Administrators makes it clear that the Committee has threadbare examined the entire issue and then after taking into account all aspects finalised the names to be sent for participating in the Commonwealth Games. The court in the present jurisdiction cannot substitute its own view with the view arrived into by the Committee of Administrators and the Selection Committee. The courts do not have any expertise to get into the selection and finalisation of players for participation at the international level. This Court is conscious of the fact that any such findings can be interfered with only if there is any perversity or arbitrariness in the findings arrived into by the Federation concerned. However, I do not find any such arbitrariness or perversity in the such order and furthermore, Mr Moazzam Khan, learned counsel for Respondent 1 has stated at bar that the names have already been finalised and sent to the Indian Olympic Association.

17. The court has to take into account that the Selection Committee/Expert Committee has to take account numerous factors while taking decision of selecting sportsperson to represent the country. This exercise cannot be as simple as comparing scores based on individual performances. In the present case also Committee of Administrator has weighed different factors and therefore, this Court finds itself unable to interfere in exercise of its power of judicial review. This Court also finds complete absence of any arbitrariness or mala fide in the decision arrived at by the Committee of Administrators.

18. To represent a nation and to participate, perform and excel in the arena of international sports, a player must not only possess physical but great mental and emotional strength and agility. It is thus pivotal that there should be no uncertainty in the minds of the players. Such litigations may disrupt and impact the preparation and performance of the players.”

21. In view of the settled law, the Ad-hoc Committee of the WFI, which comprises of experts in the field of wrestling, have unanimously decided that Respondents No.3 & 4, who are elite athletes, should be exempted from selection trials in order to prevent them from suffering any injury in the selection process. This decision has been taken looking at the performances of Respondents No.3 & 4 in the world wrestling events. It is stated in the Status Report that the last date for sending final entries of the Wrestling Squad for the upcoming Asian Games, as fixed by the Olympic Council of Asia, is 23.07.2023 and the selection trials for the categories in question will be conducted on 22.07.2023 & 23.07.2023. Unlike other sports, there is a greater risk of injury being caused to the players during trials in sports like wrestling and boxing. The Asian Games are to begin in about two months’ time and in case injury is caused to the elite athletes, who are medal probables, the time for recovery is extremely low and, therefore, the decision taken by the Committee to exempt Respondents No.3 & 4 from selection trials in order to ensure that they are not to exposed to injuries during trials cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious or perverse.

22. The WFI has filed an affidavit dated 21.07.2023 categorically stating that the Minutes of Meeting dated 25.08.2022 along with the cover letter dated 07.09.2022 are not available in the records of the WFI as available with the Ad-hoc Committee of WFI and Mr. Chaudhary submits that the documents are disputed documents. It has also been stated in the said affidavit that on 27.08.2022, i.e. exactly after two days of the alleged decision of the General Council of WFI, exemption from selection trials was granted to three wrestlers including the Respondent No.3 herein for participating in World Wrestling Championship. The veracity of Minutes of Meeting dated 25.08.2022 along with the cover letter dated 07.09.2022 cannot be ascertained by this Court at this juncture and, therefore, the same are not being considered by this Court. It is well settled that disputed documents can only proved in a suit by leading oral/documentary evidence.

23. This Court is not commenting upon the merits of the Petitioners herein who have also excelled in the field of wrestling but this Court is not inclined to sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Committee as the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. As stated in the affidavit filed by the WFI, a similar decision was taken 27.08.2022 also wherein exemption was granted to Respondent No.3 from undergoing selection trials for his participation in the World Wrestling Championship and he came back with a medal for the country. It is neither the contention of the Petitioners nor can it be said that the WFI has acted against the interest of the country or that the decision has been taken because of certain extraneous circumstances or in order to favour anyone.

24. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J JULY 22, 2023