The selection of athletes for the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics must adhere to established eligibility criteria and be conducted in a transparent and fair manner, avoiding arbitrary deviations.

Headnote:(A) Legal Framework - Eligibility Criteria for Selection at the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics - Petitioner, an experienced para-athlete, challenges the decision of the Paralympic Committee of India (PCI) to select another athlete based on inflated scoring criteria and non-recognized events. The court emphasized fair and transparent selection practices as essential for sports governance. (Paras 1, 14)

(B) Selection Process - Minimum Qualifying Score (MQS) criteria must be adhered to while evaluating candidates. The PCI accepted scores from the Novi Sad Grand Prix despite it not being listed as a qualifying event, leading to a contention of arbitrary selection practices. (Paras 8, 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner has represented India in prior Paralympic games and asserts discrimination by PCI in favoring another athlete based on scores from a non-standard event. The adjustable if the pandemic altered selection protocols leading to discrepancies in evaluation practices.

Findings of Court:
The court noted the legitimacy of scores accepted from the Novi Sad Grand Prix under pandemic-related operational challenges but pointed to irregularities in PCI's selection approach.

Issues: Whether the Novi Sad Grand Prix could be acknowledged for selection standards diverging from established eligibility guidelines raised concerns of bias against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the PCI's rationale based on the pandemic's impact but also highlighted the need for fairness and equal opportunity in selection processes.

Result: The petition was disposed of without direct intervention but ordered an examination of PCI's selection practices.

Table of Content
1. petitioner is a para-athlete seeking inclusion. (Para 1)
2. petitioner argues biased selection process. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. respondent defends selection based on merit. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court questions the eligibility of novi sad scores. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. pandemic context allows for exceptional considerations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. court declines to interfere with respondent's selection. (Para 13)
7. court notes potential discrimination but does not grant petitioner's request. (Para 14 , 15)
8. petition disposed with no order as to costs. (Para 16)

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The present writ petition has been preferred by a para-athlete who aspires to compete in the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics set to commence from 02.08.2021. It is the petitioner's case that he is an award-winning athlete and has previously represented the country in five Paralympic games held between 1996 and 2016, in the Rifle and Pistol events. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent no.1/Paralympic Committee of India (hereinafter referred to as the `PCI') to select respondent no.4/Mr.Deepak to represent India at the R-7 event, being Men's 50m Rifle Position SH1, at the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics instead of the petitioner; he seeks a direction to respondent no.1 to include his name in the list of Selected Shooters for the R-7 event at the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics.

2. Assailing the decision of the PCI Selection Committee, Mr Varun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the eligibility criteria for selection in Tokyo Paralympics, each athlete interested in participating in the event had to achieve a Minimum Qualifying Score (MQS) at a Shooting Event, which would then be used to calculate his Final Average Score (FAS). To that end, there were two kinds of events, being international and domestic, in which the athlete could participate to build his FAS. He submits that however, the FAS calculated by the Committee appeared to deliberately deviate from the 2019-20 calculation criteria and contained inflated scores, which issue was raised by the petitioner in an e-mail sent by him to the President of the PCI on 17.07.2021. He draws my attention to a chart reflecting the score tabulation between the petitioner and respondent no.4 and submits that, contrary to the usual policy, the respondents decided to factor in the scores obtained by respondent no.4 in the Novi Sad 2021 World Shooting Para Sport (WSPS) Grand Prix, held between 01.04.2021 and 04.04.2021, even though it was not a recognised event for the purpose of score tabulation either by the PCI or the International Paralympic Committee (IPC). He submits that the Detailed Selection Criteria uploaded by the PCI on 18.06.2019 on its website for the Indian Paralympic Shooting Team at the Tokyo Paralympics, clearly stated that for the purpose of calculating MQS, only scores accumulated from the following eight shooting events would be considered- (i) Cheongju 2018 WSPS World Championship, Korea, (ii) Chateauroux 2018 World Cup, France (iii) Para-Asian Games, Jakarta, Indonesia 2013, (iv) Al Ain 2019 WSPS World Cup, UAE, (v) Osijek 2019 WSPS World Cup, Croatia, (vi) WSPS World Championship Sydney 2019, Australia, (vii) AI Ain 2020/21 WSPS World Cup, UAE and, (viii) Paralympic Selection Trials 2019-20/21. He submits that the criterion intentionally did not enlist Novi Sad Grand Prix as one of the qualifying events given that a World Cup is a tougher competition where a large number of countries participate, whereas Grand Prix have lesser competitors. This is why, as a matter of practice, even the Schedule issued by the parent body, IPC, did not include Grand Prix event scores for tallying the FAS of an athlete.

3. Mr. Singh then submits that the respondent no.4 was permitted and, in fact, encouraged to participate at the Novi Sad Grand Prix by the respondent no.1 pursuant to an e-mail that was specifically written by the Chairperson, STC Shooting, PCI to the Se