RENJITH MAHESHWARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an Olympian who represented India in three Olympics and had won bronze for India in Common Wealth games. The Indian record for Tripple Jump of 17.35 meters is in his name which was achieved by him by overcoming the 36 year long previous record. Petitioner took part in National Olympics representing Kerala state as well as Railways. He retired from active national and international competitions in 2018 due to an injury suffered during trial run of the 2020 Olympics. Petitioner was informed by the first respondent through Ext.P1 that the Arjuna award for athletics of the year 2013 would be conferred to him on 31/8/2013 at Rashtrapathy Bhavan by the Hon'ble President of India. But on 31/8/2013 just before the award ceremony petitioner was informed orally by the first respondent to withdrew from the award giving ceremony. Thereafter on 19/9/2013 first respondent issued Ext.P4 press release in which it is mentioned that the award was kept in abeyance pending investigation about the alleged suspension and ban in a doping charge of 2008 with respect to 46th National Open Championship held at Kochi. Petitioner disputes the same. According to the petitioner, he has not participated in that Championship and it was actually held at Delhi.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner never had been informed about the charge of doping during 2008-2009 or about the punishments. It is the definite case of the petitioner that he had not been visited with any kind of disciplinary action in his athletic carrier. During the alleged period of suspension as well as ban, petitioner was undergoing training with the fourth respondent and first respondent met the expenses. Thereafter from April 2009, petitioner had joined in the National camp under the aegis of the second respondent to participate in Olympics and Commonwealth games. Through Ext.P4, petitioner came to know that the award was cancelled due to the above allegations. According to the petitioner during 2008 fifth respondent who conducted the analysis of the sample was not having the accreditation of World anti doping agency. According to the petitioner, there was no standard operating procedure during that time. According to the petitioner fifth respondent got accreditation in 2009 and list of sports persons found to had used prohibited drugs were published. Petitioner's name was not there in the list. The persons whose names were there in the published list of dope tainted sports persons, were bestowed with Arjuna award in 2005 and 2021. Petitioner requested for records pertaining the dope allegations through Right to Information Act, but there was no response. The grievance of the petitioner is that, because of Ext.P4 press release, there is humiliation to the petitioner and his family. Petitioner challenged Ext.P4 press release.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned ASGI.