SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's argument „All I am asking is a trial for Rio Games? makes interesting sound -bite, but the issue is whether this argument is legally tenable and in consonance with the facts of the case.

(2.) By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged selection of respondent no.5 by respondent no.4 -Wrestling Federation of India (hereinafter referred to as "respondent no. 4 -WFI") for the 74 kg Men's Freestyle Wrestling event at the Rio Olympics Games 2016 commencing 5th August, 2016. It is pertinent to mention that respondent no.5 had secured a berth for India in the 74 kg men's free -style category for the Olympics by winning a bronze medal in the World Championship 2015 held in Las Vegas in September, 2015. The trials to select a wrestler to represent India in the said event at the World ChaArticle 226 mpionship were held in July, 2015, in which the petitioner did not participate. While the petitioner states that he did not participate in the trial because he was nursing an injury, respondent no. 4 - WFI and respondent no. 5 dispute the said fact.

(3.) Mr. Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel for petitioner stated that as a wrestler represents the country in international events, once the wrestler attains the qualifying position in the tournament, the wrestler merely secures a berth for the country and not for himself. He contended that the National Sports Development Code, 2011 [for short "Code, 2011"] stipulates that trials have to be conducted for selecting athletes to represent India in major international sporting events. Consequently, according to him, even after the berth had been secured, a trial has to be held. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following portion of the Code, 2011 as well as guidelines dated 18th September, 2008 issued by Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports, Government of India: -