The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea seeking directions to field an Indian jiu-jitsu martial artist at the 20th Asian Games, ruling that the judiciary cannot supplant the decisions of specialized sports bodies or compel the Centre to send athletes to international competitions.
Delivering the ruling on September 23, Justice Amit Mahajan held that decisions concerning athlete participation and exclusion fall strictly within the purview of sports administrators and subject-matter experts. The bench affirmed that the high court cannot exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to order an athlete’s inclusion when the government has taken a clear policy stance not to field any contingent in that specific discipline.
The court further observed that because the multi-sport event had already commenced on September 19 in Aichi-Nagoya, Japan, no practical or effective remedy could be granted to the athlete at this advanced stage.
Missed Deadlines and Government Position
During the hearing, central government standing counsel Siddhartha Shankar Ray and advocate Sonali Modi informed the court that the Union government had decided against sending any Indian contingent or representative for the jiu-jitsu competition at the Games.
The court also took note of administrative lapses, highlighting that the petitioner’s name had not been forwarded prior to the stipulated cut-off date of May 14.
The athlete, represented by advocate Pathak Rakesh Kaushik, had approached the court contending that he met all prescribed eligibility benchmarks. The petitioner argued that despite his national association forwarding his candidature, authorities failed to process his entry for the quadrennial tournament, which concludes on October 4.
Parity Claims Rejected
The martial artist also alleged unequal treatment, submitting that certain unqualified competitors in other sporting events had been permitted to travel in a 57 kg category.
Justice Mahajan dismissed that comparison, stating that claims regarding selections in alternate disciplines failed to strengthen the petitioner’s legal standing.
Reiterating that judicial intervention is impermissible in objective administrative assessments made by sports experts, the high court formally dismissed the petition.
