Procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice are paramount in anti-doping adjudications, requiring thorough consideration of all evidence presented by the accused athlete.

Headnote:(A) National Anti-Doping Act, 2022 - Sections 3, 4, 21, 22, 23 - Anti-Doping Rule Violations - Provisional suspension and notice of charge against athlete for presence of prohibited substance in urine sample - Petitioner challenges validity of suspension and charge, claiming ingestion of substance was inadvertent due to diet - Court finds procedural lapses and absence of fair hearing in the disciplinary process, ruling that athlete's burden of proof was not adequately considered. (Paras 15, 16, 18, 20, 21)

(B) Fair Hearing - Principles of natural justice require that all material evidence must be considered in disciplinary proceedings, and failure to do so renders the proceedings unsustainable. (Paras 20, 21)

(C) Burden of Proof - Athlete must establish how the prohibited substance entered their system to claim no significant fault or negligence. (Paras 45, 46)

(D) Result - Orders of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel and Appeal Panel quashed, allowing the petitioner to resume sporting activities.

CAV ORDER

The petitioner, a distinguished athlete of national acclaim, is before this Court calling in question the validity of 3 interlinked administrative determinations: a provisional suspension order dated 26-04-2022, a formal notice of charge dated 13-07-2022 and the consequential decision of the Appellate Authority rendered on 16-04-2024.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts germane, are as follows:-

The petitioner, a Senior National Basketball Player, is not an unknown face in the world of Indian Basket Ball, as he has donned the colors of the State, no fewer than 8 times and has graced international stage representing the nation at various prestigious tournaments - South Asian Basketball championship recently held in Dhaka, Bangladesh and is said to have won gold medal in the year 2021. Therefore, he claims to be the most decorated basketball player in the country. The 1^st respondent is the Anti-Doping Agency; 2^nd respondent is the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel; 3^rd respondent is the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel and 4^th respondent is the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Union of India. The 5^th respondent is the Karnataka State Basketball Association. These are the protagonists in the lis. The petitioner, apart from his athletic prowess, serves the State’s Forest Department as a Deputy Range Forest Officer. The issue at hand does not pertain to the realm of his service, but to the sporting event i.e., Basketball.

3. On the 05-02-2022 while participating in a preparatory camp in Bangalore, intended to India’s Elite Basketball contingent, the petitioner’s urine sample was collected by the 1^st respondent and the sample was opened and resealed in Delhi. The charges from the petitioner for conducting Sample-B test was also collected by the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent then sends the sample of urine of the petitioner to a laboratory in Rome along with a letter. The communication would establish that the 1^st respondent conducted some initial procedural tests and then sends the sample to conclude the origin 19-NA substance, for the purpose of finding out whether the substance present in the urine is endogenous or exogenous through GC-C-IRMS (Gas Chromatography Combustion isotope ratio mass spectrometry) testing. The test report for any such test conducted at the National Dope Testing Laboratory was not informed or furnished to the petitioner. The test of both ‘A’ and ‘B’ samples of urine that is conducted by the laboratory at Rome was furnished to the petitioner by the 1^st respondent, through a notice. The notice was not a notice simpliciter, but a notice placing the petitioner under suspension. The lab tests did not indicate the estimate of concentration of 19- NA as per the World Anti-Doping Agency Regulations. The petitioner then was issued with the notice of charge on 13-07-2022, wherein the petitioner was charged for violation of Rule 2.1/2.2 of the National Anti-Doping Rules, 2021.

4. The petitioner, on the notice of adverse analytical finding dated 26-04-2022 and the notice of charge dated 13-07-2022, approached the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel, the 2^nd respondent, taking a specific contention that he had requested testing of ‘B’ sample on 29-04-2022, on the ground that ‘A’ sample test which was conducted in Italy, had divergence. The petitioner further defended the action on the score that he was a native of Mangalore in Karnataka and regularly consumes pork and had consumed pork the previous night and further contends that the pig meat leads the presence of 19-NA substance in his body. The petitioner avers that Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel, without adequate opportunity to the petitioner, passes an order on 10-10-2022 communicated to the petitioner on 13-10-2022, affirming the suspension of the petitioner from sporting events. The petitioner presented an Arbitration claim on the aforesaid order before the Arbitral Tribunal in Switzerland questioning the aforesaid orders. The Arbitral Tribunal opined that the Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document