Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 842

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Swastika Ghosh - Appellant
Versus
Table Tennis Federation Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 9488 of 2022 and CM Appl. 28331 of 2022
Decided On : 20-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr.Advocate, with, Mr. Keshav Ahuja, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Moazzam Khan, Mr. Aman Gupta, Mr. Brijesh Ujjainwal, Advocates, Mr. S.K.Tandon, Mr. Harshit Jain, Ms. Poonam Das, Ms. Yashima Sharma and, Mr. Prakhar Sharma, Advocates, Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC, Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Biswas, Ms. Shilpa Gamvani and Ms. Atmaja Tripathi, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The court cannot substitute its decision for that of the expert committee unless there is arbitrariness or perversity in the decision-making process. It highlighted the importance of considering various factors in sports selection and the need to avoid disrupting the preparation and performance of players.

Headnote:
Mandamus - Selection Criteria - Code - [Punjab University vs. UOI & Ors., W.P.(C) 6008/2011, Shumel vs. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4706, Neha Rathi vs. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4707, State of U.P. vs. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714, Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3660, Karamjyoti vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) 6815/2016, Paralympic Committee of India vs. Naresh Kumar Sharma 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8443] - The court discussed the discretionary nature of issuing a writ, the limitation of judicial review, and the expertise of expert committees in sports selection. It emphasized that the court cannot substitute its decision for that of the expert committee unless there is arbitrariness or perversity in the decision-making process. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering various factors in sports selection and the need to avoid disrupting the preparation and performance of players.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought inclusion in the selection list for the Commonwealth Games 2022, alleging incorrect selection process and challenging the credentials of the Selection Committee members.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that it cannot interfere in the selection process unless there is arbitrariness or perversity in the decision-making process. It emphasized the discretionary nature of issuing a writ and the limitation of judicial review in sports selection.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' exclusion from the selection list, the correctness of the selection process, and the credentials of the Selection Committee members.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that it cannot substitute its decision for that of the expert committee unless there is arbitrariness or perversity in the decision-making process. It highlighted the importance of considering various factors in sports selection and the need to avoid disrupting the preparation and performance of players.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the court found no arbitrariness or malafide in the decision arrived at by the Committee of Administrators. The court emphasized the need to avoid uncertainty in the minds of the players and the potential disruption caused by such litigations.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral). - The writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.9488/2022 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

a) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to include the Petitioner in the list of 4 selected players for the womens table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games 2022;

b) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to revoke the ratification granted to the 4 players selected by Respondent No.1 for the womens table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games 2022, in violation of the existing criteria and in contravention of the provisions of the Code;

c) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to refrain from ratifying any selections made by Respondent No. I for the womens table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games 2022, without strictly adhering to the Existing Criteria and the provisions of the Code.

2. The writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 9490/2022 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

A) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to include the Petitioner in the list of 4 selected players for the men's table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games 2022;

B) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to revoke the ratification granted to the 4 players selected by Respondent No. 1 for the men 's table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games 2022, in violation of the Existing Criteria and in contravention of the provisions of the Code;

C) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to refrain from ratifying any selections made by Respondent no. 1 for the men 's table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games 2022, without strictly adhering to the Existing Criteria and the provisions of the Code.

3. The sum and substance of the grievances of the petitioners is that their names have not been included in the final selection list by the Selection Committee and the Committee of Administrator despite fulfilling the selection criteria as laid down by the federation. The grievances of the learned counsels for the petitioners is that the process of the selection has not been adopted correctly and the persons who have been included in the list or being proposed to be sent to participate in the commonwealth game are much below in the ranking as compared to the petitioners before this court. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also challenged the credentials of the members of the Selection Committee on the ground that some of the members are who either themselves in person or their spouse are running the academy and therefore they should not entitled to be included in the selection committee. The plea of the petitioners is that their names should be included in the names of the panel to be sent for participating in the commonwealth games.

4. Per contra, the plea taken by respondent No.1 is that this court does not have domain to enter into the selection process of the selection criteria. It has been submitted that the names have already been finalized and have been sent to the Indian Olympic Association on 07.06.2022 and now the Indian Olympic Association might have sent the names further. Mr.Moazzam Khan, learned counsel for respondent no.1/TTFI has relied upon Shumel vs. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4706 and Neha Rathi vs. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4707. Learned counsel submits that a bare perusal of these judgments makes it clear that the courts are not an appropriate forum to make the selection of players to participate in the games and it is only for the expert bodies to decide.

5. Mr.Vineet Dhanda, learned Central Government Standing Counsel has also submitted that this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not have jurisdiction to enter into the nitty gritty of the selection process. It has be