Prashant v. Union of India and Ors.

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of. LPA 710/2022 & CM APPL. 53619/2022

3. Cotton Mather, an acclaimed American writer from early 1700s, once spoke of history as "History is the story of events, with praise or blame". We think the same of every case that comes up before this Court for Digitaaly adjudication. It has a history of its own, a story of its own events. And the story of this case goes like this. The Appellant, a shooting player, had been actively participating in the 10m Air Pistol shooting events in various State and National level tournaments. Admittedly, in 2017, the Appellant participated in the 40th U.P. State Shooting Championship' (Hereinafter referred as "the Championship"). Thereafter, in 2019, the appellant approached the Uttar Pradesh State Rifle Association (Hereinafter referred as "the State Association") – an affiliate body of National Rifle Association of India (Hereinafter referred as "the National Association") for the issuance of a participation certificate in lieu of his participation in the championship. In addition, the Appellant also sought permission to purchase an imported pistol of an advanced description. In response to this request, the Association served the appellant with a show cause notice dated 01.07.2019, thereby flagging certain discrepancies in the date of birth of the Appellant.

4. The show cause notice observed that in the online registration form filed by the Appellant for participating in the said tournament, the date of birth was mentioned as 21.08.2002, which was backed by two documents, namely, his birth certificate and his Aadhar Card. It further observed that the National Association sent the aforesaid registration form for verification to the State Association, wherein it was discovered that in the previously filled offline form submitted by the Appellant, before the State Association, a different date of birth was mentioned and two documents namely, a birth certificate issued by Municipal Corporation and his Aadhar Card were annexed to substantiate the same. In view of the same, the said show cause notice directed the Appellant to submit the authentic proof of his date of Digitaaly birth, duly attested by the District Magistrate. The notice also flagged certain disciplinary issues on the part of the Appellant observed during the course of the Championship. Furthermore, in view of the disciplinary issues and presentment of forged government certificates as proof of date of birth, the aforesaid notice proposed a two years' ban on the Appellant from participating in national and state level competitions.

5. In response to the aforesaid notice, the Appellant submitted the proof of date of birth, along with supporting documents, duly attested by the Magistrate. However, no certificate was issued by the Respondents. After the passage of two years, as per the Appellant, he approached the Respondent associations for issuance of participation certificates but, to no avail. The Appellant then preferred a writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 01.07.2019 and sought directions against the Respondents for issuance of a participation certificate as well as requisite permission to the Appellant to import a sport pistol so that he could participate in future tournaments. The writ petition was dismissed by Ld. Single Judge and the order of dismissal dated 24.11.2022 stands impugned before us.

6. During the course of hearing, a detailed counter affidavit was placed on record by the Respondent National Association. It so conspired that in 2017, the Appellant had submitted two forms before the State Association, namely the Championship registration form and a shooter ID form. The date of birth mentioned by the Appellant in both the forms was 21.08.1996. Subsequently, the Appellant submitted a new registration form wherein the date of birth was mentioned as 21.08.2002, duly backed by some new supporting documents, including his Aadhar Card and birth certificate issued Digitaaly by the same authority. The show cause notice under question was issued in this backdrop and the Appellant filed no reply to the same. It is also a matter of record that the National Association has placed all the cases of age dispute before a review committee and the Appellant was afforded a hearing before the committee, wherein he took a stand that the earlier birth certificate, recording his date of birth as 21.08.1996, was never submitted by him and the document lying on the record of the Association was, in fact, doctored by the State Association. The relevant chain of circumstances has been recorded in the impugned order thus:

committee, the National Association directed the Appellant to undergo an Age Verification Test (AVT), which was refused by the Appellant. In view of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (Hereinafter Digitaaly referred as “the Code”), it was incumbent upon the Appellant to undergo the medical examination to resolve the age dispute and ascertain his correct age.

7. In the impugned order, the Ld. Single Judge noted that the Appellant was unable to furnish any explanation as to how he could question the very document on the strength of which he admittedly participated in the tournament. It was further noted that the Appellant failed to explain as to why the cancellation of previous documents was not sought if they did not record the correct age of the Appellant. The Court further noted that the score sheets, attendance documents of the tournament and other material on record clearly belied the case of the Appellant. The relevant para reads thus:

8. The order of Ld. Single Judge stands impugned before us, primarily on the ground that the Court failed to look into the supporting documents of the Appellant which indicated his date of birth as 21.08.2002. The Appellant has submitted that his documents were conclusive for the determination of his date of birth and the Court erred in relying upon the contested documents Digitaaly of the Respondents as they were forged and fabricated. The Appellant has further submitted that he has been a victim of personal vendetta of the Respondent Association and the Court ought to have considered that while deciding his prayer.

9. We have heard the parties at length and now proceed to decide the controversy.

10. The Appellant submitted different information regarding his date of birth at different stages before the same Association. The Appellant also annexed different supporting documents to substantiate the information supplied by him. When the subsequent form was sent to the State Association for verification, it was nothing but proper for the Association to issue the show cause notice under question. The show cause notice was issued by the Respondent Association to elicit the truth regarding the date of birth of the Appellant. Moreover, considering the prevalence of age-related frauds in sporting activities at all levels, it was imminent for the Respondents to verify the credentials of the Appellant.

11. The Appellant failed to reply to the show cause notice and nothing has been placed on the record to indicate that duly attested proof, as required by the show cause notice, was submitted by the Appellant to the Association. Be that as it may, the Appellant approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition and sought directions to be given to the Respondents on the strength of two documents viz. Aadhar Card and a new birth certificate. Pertinently, these two documents are the same documents which were put to question by the Respondents, and rightly so, owing to the discrepancy in date of birth Digitaaly between these documents and previously submitted documents. Thus, the controversy before the Court could not have been answered by looking into the documents of the Appellant himself. We reject the Appellant's contention that the Ld. Single Judge ought to have determined the date of birth of the Appellant solely on the basis of the documents submitted by him. The documents relied upon by the Appellant were inconsistent with previously submitted documents and this inconsistency was the root of the entire issue.

12. The matter of the Appellant was placed before the review committee of the National Association. In order to resolve the controversy, the committee found a way forward in the 2011 Code, and in accordance with the Code, the review committee proposed an Age Verification Test. The Appellant refused to undertake the verification test. The Ld. Single Judge during the course of hearing enquired from the Appellant about his willingness to undertake an age verification test. However, as noted in the impugned order, the Appellant refused and insisted upon the decision to be made on the basis of the (questioned) documents. The Appellant has taken an anomalous stand that the documents lying with the State Association were forged and fabricated by the Association itself. Without expressing any legal view on it, at the outset, we feel that this submission is not only devoid of any basis in fact, but is also a crude statement given in the Court in a highly casual and cavalier manner. Moreover, the clear reluctance on the part of the Appellant to submit himself to medical examination also goes on to show his own disbelief in the case set up by him in the writ petition.