Deals & Matter

Naresh Kumar Sharma vs Paralympic Committee of India

Environmental Law

Supreme Court

Naresh Kumar Sharma vs Paralympic Committee of India
  • O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 349/2022
  • 29 November 2022
  • Delhi High Court

Issue

Supreme CourtThe petitioner, Naresh Kumar Sharma, a veteran para-athlete who had represented India in five Paralympic Games from 1996 to 2016, approached the Delhi High Court challenging the selection of Respondent No. 4, Deepak, for the R-7 Men’s 50m Rifle Position SH1 event in the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics. He alleged that the Paralympic Committee of India (PCI) had acted arbitrarily, violated its selection criteria, and discriminated against him by including scores from an unlisted event, the Novi Sad 2021 WSPS Grand Prix, in Deepak’s Final Average Score (FAS).

Petitioner’s Claim

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Varun Singh, contended that:

  1. As per PCI’s Detailed Selection Criteria (2019), only scores from eight pre-listed international events could be considered for FAS calculation; Novi Sad Grand Prix was not one of them.
  2. Deepak’s inclusion was based on his score at Novi Sad, an event neither recognized by PCI nor the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) for qualifying purposes.
  3. Grand Prix events had fewer competitors and were less competitive than World Cups; hence, including them skewed the fairness of selection.
  4. PCI had gone out of its way to secure Deepak’s participation in Novi Sad by directly corresponding with IPC officials, while not informing other athletes, including the petitioner, that they could also compete there.
  5. The petitioner had a consistent track record, often outperforming Deepak in recognized events.
  6. The inclusion of Novi Sad scores was discriminatory and a retaliation for the petitioner’s past criticism of PCI for corruption and malpractice.

The petitioner therefore sought directions for inclusion in the R-7 event alongside or in place of Respondent No. 4.

Respondent’s Argument

PCI, represented by Mr. Naveen Kumar, argued that:

  1. The COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread cancellation of qualifying events, forcing a relaxation of original criteria to include other WSPS-compliant international events like Novi Sad.
  2. IPC’s Senior Manager for World Shooting Para Sport had confirmed in writing that Novi Sad was Deepak’s last chance to secure the second required MQS for R-7, and if not allowed, India’s quota would be lost.
  3. Deepak was the quota place winner for India in R-7 due to his 1143 points at the Lima World Cup, compared to the petitioner’s 1120.
  4. Deepak was among the top scorers nationally in R-7 and other events; his selection was merit-based.
  5. The petitioner was free to participate in Novi Sad but chose not to.

Deals & Matter Corner

The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from

Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed

View More

Articles & Publications

The Division Bench of the Delhi High

Varun Singh, Founder and Managing Partner, Foresight

View More
Blogs

Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

The power of a governmental authority or

View More

Court’s Findings and Observations (By Justice Rekha Palli)

Factual Position

Novi Sad was not originally a qualifying event under the 2019 PCI criteria. However, due to the pandemic and limited opportunities, IPC itself permitted Novi Sad scores to be used for MQS purposes.

Merit Comparison

Up until domestic trials, the petitioner was ahead by a slim margin, but Deepak’s Novi Sad performance (plus 1 quota point) pushed him ahead by 9 points.

Pandemic Context

The Court recognized that selection rules were formulated before COVID-19 and needed flexibility due to exceptional circumstances. Given IPC’s acceptance of Novi Sad scores, PCI’s reliance on them could not be faulted.

Timing

With the shooting team already in a “bubble” for the Paralympics, the Court held that intervention at this late stage would be inappropriate.

Court’s Decision

The petition was dismissed insofar as the prayer for including the petitioner in the R-7 event was concerned, primarily due to the timing and IPC’s approval of Novi Sad scores. However, the Court directed the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (Respondent No. 3) to examine the petitioner’s grievance of discrimination, after hearing both sides, and take appropriate action against PCI if foul play was found. No costs were awarded.

Deals and Matter

Disclaimer

This website is for informational purposes only and is not intended to advertise or solicit work as per the Bar Council of India rules. By accessing www.foresightlawoffices.com, you acknowledge that you are seeking information about Foresight Law voluntarily. Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice or creates a lawyer-client relationship. Foresight Law is not responsible for any actions taken based on the content here. External links do not imply endorsement. Please do not share confidential information via this website. For details, review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I Agree I Disagre

Scroll to Top