The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of sports federations to address complaints and promote the welfare of sportspersons in accordance with the National Sports Code, 2011.

ORDER

Rekha Palli, J (Oral). - The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by a top-ranked Table Tennis player who has been representing India since 2008 in various tournaments internationally, being aggrieved by the actions of the respondent no. 1, which it is alleged, is against the interest of the players. The Petitioner has consequently also assailed the "Rules and Regulations for National Camp" (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') introduced by the said respondent on 04.08.2021, mandating compulsory attendance of players at the 'National Coaching Camp', in order to be selected for international events. It is the Petitioner's case that the said Rules, besides being illegal and contrary to the National Sports Code, 2011, had been mala fidely framed to exclude her from participating in further tournaments, on account of the serious allegations of attempted match-fixing levelled by her against the respondent no.3, the national coach appointed by the respondent no.1, from whom she was being compelled to take her coaching.

2. On 23.09.2021, when the petition was taken up for preliminary consideration by the Court, it was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, that even though, she had, by way of prayer (ii), sought a direction to the respondent no. 1 to include her name in the Indian contingent at the 25th ITTF - Asian Table Tennis Championship, 2021 which was to be held from 28.09.2021 to 05.10.2021 at Doha; in view of the limited time that was left for the commencement of the tournament, she was left with no other option but to skip such a precious tournament. The petition was, therefore, confined to seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) A Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the Rules and Regulations titled as "Rules and Regulations for National Camp" dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure P4, [Pg. 289]) issued by Respondent No. 1; and

(iii) A Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 to enquire into the management of the Respondent No. 1; conduct of Respondent No. 3 and other officials of Respondent No. 1 as detailed in the present petition and the email of the Petitioner dated 14.08.2021 and the representation sent by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 dated 17.09.2021 and Respondent No. 2 dated 17.09.2021 under the supervision of this Hon 'ble Court. "

3. The Petitioner's case is that even though, she had immediately brought to the notice of the federation about her being pressurized by respondent no.3, to concede a match to be held on 18.03.2021 at the Asian Olympic Qualification Tournament, no action was taken on the same. This attempted match-fixing by respondent no.3 was done only to enable a player, who was undergoing personal coaching at his private academy, to qualify for the Tokyo Olympics. Instead, the Petitioner was, at the behest of respondent no.3, harassed by respondent no. 1 and was therefore, consequently compelled to play without her personal coach in the Tokyo Olympics. Soon after the Tokyo Olympics, the Petitioner sent a written complaint to the respondent no.1, but once again, the respondent no.1 instead of inquiring into her complaints, not only issued her a Show Cause Notice dated 20.08.2021, but also the impugned rules with an attempt to exclude her from participating in international tournaments. It is the Petitioner's claim that by using these Rules, the respondents succeeded in ousting her from the Asian Championship.

4. In the light of these serious allegations of the Petitioner, and the categorical stand of the respondent no.2 that the impugned Rules were in the teeth of the National Sports Code, 2011, which enjoins all National Sports Federations (NSF), to make a judicious selection of players for participation in major international events based on merit, this Court on 23.09.2021 hadstayed the operation of the Rules. Simultaneously, respondent no.2 was directed to get the Petitioner's c