Rio Olympics: Setback For Sushil Kumar, Court Says Trials Not Mandatory

Delhi High Court on Thursday said that as per the national sports code and the Centre, it is not mandatory for the Wresting Federation of India (WFI) to hold trials for selection of grapplers for Rio Olympics 2016.

"Problem is that the sports code is nowhere prescribing that trial is mandatory. It has given flexibility and autonomy to the organisation to decide (mode of selection).

"I do not find the statutory mandate which you are trying to read into it," Justice Manmohan said to the counsel for two time Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar, who has moved the court seeking directions to WFI to hold selection trials to decide who will represent the country in the 74 Kg freestyle category of the sport at the Rio Olympics.

The Centre, when asked about its role in the selection process, told the court it has no role to play and that WFI was an autonomous body.

Meanwhile, WFI told the court that it has already sent on May 3 the name of Narsingh Pancham Yadav to United World Wrestling, which oversees the sport at the Olympics.

This move was questioned by Sushil's counsel, senior advocate Amit Sibal, who said, "why the rush to send the name on May 3 when deadline was July 18?"

He also said that by doing so Sushil's plea has been rendered infructuous.

The court, however, said that since it has heard lengthy arguments it will deliver a judgement and reserved its verdict on the athlete's plea.

While doing so, the court also observed that wrestlers were a small well knit community/group who were "perfectly aware" of the past and consistent practice regarding selections.

Sibal disagreed with this view of the court and said that while WFI held trials for Commonwealth Games every year, none were conducted in 2014 and added that there was inconsistency, year after year, in the policy followed for selections.

Regarding the Centre's stand that it has no role to play, Sibal contended that under the sports code the government was duty bound to ensure that selection policy followed by the federation has to be fair and transparent, and it "cannot wash its hands off" this obligation.

The court, meanwhile, took a strict view of a "false affidavit" given by WFI Vice President Raj Singh stating that such a situation had occurred in the past and trials were held in that case. The affidavit was filed along with the petition of Sushil.

Justice Manmohan indicated he was inclined to issue a notice to Raj Singh as to why perjury proceedings be not initiated against him and added "he can not be allowed to go scot-free". The judge also wondered how the petitioner got the affidavit even before filing the petition.

Sibal, however, said he has not relied upon the affidavit and added that if it was false then the consequences must follow.

During arguments, Sibal stressed upon the need for written rules and regulations, saying it would act as a "fetter" on discretion.

He also said that the government can examine if a policy was fair and transparent, only if it was written down and in the instant case there were no written rules or regulations with regard to selection process.

On the issue of holding a selection trial before the Olympics, Sibal contended that trials were mandatory to ascertain the "current consistent form" of the athletes as the "overarching goal" was to maximise the medal tally of the country. He also said that trials were the only solution for "ad-hocism".

Regarding the court's observation yesterday that Sushil had taken benefit of WFI's policy thrice, Sibal said during those three occasions no top level athletes came to the court saying they did not get a chance, and added that his client can not be blamed for what happened then.

He further said that names for the top wrestling teams from USA and Russia have not yet been sent as they are still to hold trials.

Defending its stand, WFI asked why India should "ape" USA or Russia.

The federation also said that trials have already been held in September 2015, March 2016, April 2016 and May 2016 and "we cannot have trials every other day".

"Then the wrestlers would keep speculating about their chances," the organisation said.

During an earlier hearing, the high court had observed that Sushil and Yadav should not be used as "pawns" in the "politics" of the wrestling federation.

WFI had earlier told the court that Yadav was a better bet than Sushil in the 74 kg freestyle category at the Rio 2016.

Yadav's counsel had told the court that the athlete who secures a quota, represents the country in the Olympics.

Sushil had approached the high court after his name did not figure in India's Rio preparatory camp.