Para-Sports Governance Must Be Fair, Transparent and Consistent: Delhi High Court Protects Athlete's Right to Participate

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Rekha Palli
Case No.: W.P.(C) 6825/2021
Case Title: Naresh Kumar Sharma v. Paralympic Committee of India & Ors.
Decided on: 27 July 2021
Neutral Citation: 2021:DHC:2202

Background

The present writ petition arose from a dispute concerning the selection process for India's para-athletics contingent. The petitioner, Naresh Kumar Sharma, challenged the decision of the Paralympic Committee of India (PCI) refusing to consider him for participation in an international para-athletics championship despite his eligibility and performance.

The petitioner contended that the selection process adopted by the PCI lacked transparency and fairness. According to him, the criteria were either altered or inconsistently applied, resulting in his exclusion from the final list of athletes. He argued that the decision violated the principles of natural justice, equality, and fair play that are expected from national sports bodies entrusted with selecting athletes to represent the country.

The respondents defended their decision by submitting that selections were made strictly in accordance with the governing regulations, technical criteria, and recommendations of the Selection Committee. They further argued that courts should exercise limited judicial review over decisions involving sports administration and technical expertise.

The Delhi High Court was therefore called upon to examine whether the selection process complied with constitutional standards of fairness and whether judicial intervention was warranted.

Issues Before the Court

The Court considered the following principal issues:

1. Whether the selection process adopted by the Paralympic Committee of India was fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary.
2. Whether the petitioner had been denied equal treatment in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
3. To what extent the High Court could exercise judicial review over decisions of sports federations concerning athlete selection.
4. Whether the impugned decision required interference in order to protect the rights of para-athletes.

Key Observations of the Court

The Delhi High Court reiterated that although courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with decisions involving technical expertise in sports administration, such restraint does not extend to situations where the decision-making process suffers from arbitrariness, procedural unfairness, or violation of legal principles.

The Court emphasized that sports federations performing public functions are expected to maintain transparency, objectivity, and consistency in their selection processes. Athletes invest years of training and preparation, and therefore selection decisions cannot be based upon vague, inconsistent, or undisclosed standards.

The Court observed that every eligible athlete has a legitimate expectation that the published selection criteria will be uniformly applied. Any departure from those criteria without adequate justification undermines the credibility of the selection process and erodes confidence in sports administration.

The Court further noted that para-athletes deserve equal dignity and equal opportunities. Institutions responsible for promoting disability sports must act in a manner that advances inclusion and fairness rather than creating avoidable barriers.

While recognizing the autonomy of sports bodies, the Court clarified that such autonomy cannot become a shield against judicial scrutiny where constitutional principles of fairness and equality are compromised.

Directions Issued by the Court

After examining the material placed before it, the Delhi High Court issued appropriate directions to safeguard the petitioner's rights and ensure a fair consideration of his candidature.

The Court directed the concerned authorities to reconsider the petitioner's case in accordance with the applicable selection norms and without adopting any arbitrary or discriminatory approach. It further emphasized that all future decisions should strictly adhere to the notified criteria and be supported by objective reasons.

The Court reaffirmed that sports bodies must ensure transparency in every stage of the selection process so that deserving athletes are not prejudiced by administrative inconsistencies.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant because it reinforces the principle that sports governance, particularly in the field of disability sports, must conform to constitutional standards of fairness, transparency, and equality.

The decision strikes an important balance between respecting the autonomy of sports federations and ensuring judicial oversight where administrative decisions become arbitrary or unreasonable.

For para-athletes, the judgment strengthens the protection against opaque selection procedures and reiterates that sporting excellence must be evaluated through objective and uniformly applied standards.

The ruling also contributes to the evolving jurisprudence recognizing that disability rights extend beyond accessibility and reasonable accommodation to include equal participation in sporting opportunities.

Commentary

The judgment is an important reminder that institutions responsible for disability sports carry both administrative and constitutional responsibilities. While courts should not substitute their own assessment for that of expert selection committees, they remain duty-bound to ensure that public authorities and recognized sports federations act fairly, transparently, and consistently.

The decision also reflects a broader shift in Indian disability jurisprudence—from viewing persons with disabilities merely as beneficiaries of welfare measures to recognizing them as equal participants entitled to dignity, procedural fairness, and equal opportunity.

Transparent selection policies are essential not only for protecting individual athletes but also for maintaining public confidence in disability sports governance. As India continues to strengthen its para-sports ecosystem, this judgment serves as an important precedent affirming that excellence in sports must be accompanied by integrity in administration.

Read the Judgement

Naresh Kumar Sharma v. Paralympic Committee of India & Ors.

 

Madras HC to Tamil Nadu Govt. - No purchasing buses for public transport, unless they are disabled friendly

Court: Madrash High Court, India

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy 

Case No(s): W.P. No. 5957 of 2021(Lead Case) along with WP 38224 of 2005 and WP 923 of 2007

Case Title:     Vaishnavi Jayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & two Others (Lead Case)

Date of Hearing: 22 July 2021

Case Brief 

In a push for the rights and independence of people with disabilities in their commute, the Madras high court on Thursday restrained Tamil Nadu from purchasing any new bus to its fleet in the public transport system unless such buses were disabled-friendly as prescribed by law.

The first bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the interim injunction on a batch of pleas that have been pending before the court for years including from as far back as 2005, seeking universal use of disabled-friendly buses in public tranport fleet. 

One of the writ petitions in the batch i.e. W.P. No. 5957 of 2021 had been filed by cross disability rights advocate, Vaishnavi Jayakumar. She had challenged a Government Order (GO) issued on February 24 this year, for introduction of only 10% of low floor buses and 25% of buses fitted with lift mechanism or any other suitable mode, to provide easy access to wheelchair bound passengers, out of the total buses to be procured for Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited.

The petitioner had contended that the GO violates Section 41 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016. The legislation requires the State government to take suitable measures to provide facilities for persons with disabilities at bus stops, railway stations and airports and also access to all modes of transport by even retrofitting old modes of transport wherever it was technically feasible.

She said the GO for introducing only 10% of low floor buses and those with lift mechanism was also in violation of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. “The GO is an arbitrary exercise of power by the State. It is not only in complete violation of the rights of persons with disabilities but also contumacious, since it violates several judicial orders,” she said.

The petitioner had sought to restrain the state from acquiring any further bus unless it conforms to the requirements of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 and under the latter, Rule 15 in particular. Rule 15 mandates that every establishment complies with the specified standard as indicated in a notification issued by the Government of India on September 20, 2016.

Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram said the government was purchasing disabled-friendly buses in phases because the roads were in bad shape and they would damage the low-floored buses.

Advocate Rita Chandrasekar, representing Metropolitan Transport Corporation, said the low floor buses cost ₹58 lakh each as against ₹26 lakh for regular buses and hence there was a delay in purchasing such buses.

The state's submission that low-floor buses were expensive and would be damaged by bad roads was rejected. The state has been submitting excuses of certain practical difficulties, particularly in finding resources not only to acquire the more expensive buses but also to create the road infrastructure required for such sophisticated buses. It sought more time to indicate a roadmap.

Rejecting their submissions, the bench in its order said, "In view of the mandate of the statute, read with the Rules framed thereunder and the notification published in accordance therewith, there may be no room to manoeuvre and little scope for the court to delay the implementation of the policy as reflected in the statute and the laws made thereunder.

The court further said in its order, "the State seeks time to indicate a road-map. However, it is necessary that the State be restrained from acquiring any further bus for the public transport system which does not conform to the specifications indicated in the notification of September 20, 2016 referred to above. In other words, the State will not acquire any new bus for use thereof as part of the public transport system unless such bus meets the standards indicated in the notification of September 20, 2016".

Read the interim order dated 22 Jul 2021, embedded below:

Read the Final updates in the case and Final Order dated 05 Jul 2022 on link: Madras HC | TN Govt. GO to the extent it offends RPWD Act or Provisions of Harmonised Guidelines & SC Judgement in Rajive Raturi case.