This petition sought directives for better functioning and accountability of the Paralympics Committee of India regarding athlete support and spending. The Court disposed of the matter by directing respondents to consider suggestions from advocates and the ASG within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~4
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
WP (C) 6468/2012
Page 1 of 9
taken against the erring officials of the Respondent No. 2 for committing the overt acts of harassment against the Petitioners;
iv. Respondents to explain the expenditure of funds being allocated to Respondent No. 2 for the Paralympics Games-2012 held in London;
vi. The respondents to either form a statutory authority or a body to keep check on the functioning of the Respondent No. 2.
represented India in more than 5 Paralympics so far and he is the only physically challenged athlete who dared to compete with the best amongst the abled bodied persons. The said petitioner has represented India in various International Shooting Championships for the Physically Handicapped. The petitioner no.2/Farman Basha who is a polio-afflicted para-athlete, has brought many laurels to the country in the last 18 years is
WP (C) 6468/2012
Page 2 of 9
also a veteran who has an illustrious career, having won several international medals. During the Paralympics Games-2012, total number of players, escorts and coaches selected for the special camp were 22 but the total number of officials reached at London in Paralympics Games were 33 in which few were not even related to the sports in which they were assigned.
WP (C) 6468/2012
Page 3 of 9
country by allowing contingent officials having no experience, to represent themselves as coaches of the athletes. Apart from the above, the petitioners amongst other athletes had been duped for their hard work and dedication by the respondents who not only have lost the chance of winning medals for their country but have been discouraged from participating in any future events. The most interesting part is that the officials of the PCI despite claiming that the services rendered by them are free of cost, have indulged into misappropriation of funds and in turn making the athletes suffer for want of requisite facilities. This in turn shows the apathy of not only the athletes at the hands of the Paralympics Committee of India but also on the international level, whereby the reputation of the country has been severally prejudiced, only on account of these erring officials.
WP (C) 6468/2012
Page 4 of 9
the respondents and could not perform upto their standards.
London-2012 Paralympics Games which are as follows:-
PLAYERS
| S.NO. | NAMES | DISCIPLINE |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Mr.H. N. Girisha | Athletics |
| 2. | Mr. JagseerSingh | Athletics |
| 3. | Mr. Jaideep | Athletics |
| 4. | Mr. Narendra | Athletics |
| 5. | Mr.AmitKumar | Athletics |
| 6. | Mr.Farman Basha | Power-lifting |
| 7. | Mr.Rajendra Singh | Power-lifting |
| 8. | Mr. SachinChaudhary | Power-lifting |
| 9. | Mr. Sharath M. Gayakwad | Swimming |
| 10. | Mr. Naresh KumarSharma | Shooting |
COACHES
| S.No. | NAMES |
|---|---|
| 1. | Mr. NavalSingh |
| 2. | Mr. Satyanarayana |
| 3. | Mr. K.S. Nizzamudin |
| 4. | Mr. VijayB Munishwar |
| 5. | Mr. SadanandMalashetti |
| 6. | Mr. John Christopher Nirmal Kumar |
WP (C) 6468/2012
Page 5 of 9
ESCORTS
| S.NO. | NAMES | PLAYERS |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | K.N. Govinda | JagseerSingh& Narender |
| 2. | Mr.Devender | AmitKumar |
| 3. | Mr. Mangush Umredkar | Power lifting |
| 4. | Mr.KN Vishwanath | Jaideep &H. N. Girisha |
| 5. | Mrs.AntonitaFarman | Farman Basha |
| 6. | Mr. Sudhir Tomar | Naresh Kumar Sharma |
as coaches/ escorts were permitted to assist the athletes in the games.
WP (C) 6468/2012
Page 6 of 9
Accordingly, it was the responsibility of the PCI and the head of the contingent, known as ‘Chef De Mission’ to manage the accreditation of the coaches/escorts, so as to provide the requisite comfort to the Athletes. However, the ‘Chef De Mission’ acting in blatant violation of the duties, obligations and responsibilities entrusted upon them, allowed the officials having no experience as coaches/escorts of the Athletes and provided them the entry, whereas the real coaches/escorts were made to stay outside the games venues, which in turn lead to downfall of the morale and confidence of the petitioners and resulted into not winning medals in their respective fields.
WP (C) 6468/2012
7 of 9
and escorts, the petitioners could not perform as per their standard and capabilities and lead to huge defeat, which defeat is solely attributable to the overt acts of the PCI and other respondents.
WP (C) 6468/2012
Page 8 of 9
respondent no.1 and consider the suggestions made by the aforesaid Advocates and come to the proper conclusion.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE MAY 02, 2019 ab
WP (C) 6468/2012
Page 9 of 9
NARESH KUMAR SHARMA & ANR
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
