Case Title – Manini Kaushik Vs. The National Rifle Association of India & Ors.
Case Number – W.P. (C) 5438/2024 & CM APPL. 22456/2024
Dated on – 15th May, 2024
Quorum – Justice Subramonium Prasad
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Manini Kaushik Vs. The National Rifle Association of India & Ors., the Appellant sought a directive from the court to allow her to participate in the Paris Olympic Selection Trials for the 50-metre Rifle 3 Position Women Category. These trials were scheduled to be held in New Delhi and Bhopal in April and May, 2024, respectively. The Appellant had participated in various domestic and international competitions in the 50-metre Rifle 3 Position Women Category. Notably, she was a part of the team that won a Silver Medal at the Asian Games 2022 in Hangzhou, China. The NRAI had established the criteria for the selection of the Olympic Shooting Teams in October, 2022. In November, 2023, the NRAI amended the selection criteria and further added conditions for eligibility. The Appellant asserted that had the original 2022 criteria been followed, she would have been eligible for the selection trials as other higher-ranked shooters did not have the requisite QROG points. The NRAI justified the amended criteria due to the changes in the ISSF calendar, which allowed more events and opportunities for athletes to qualify and claimed that the amendments were publicized in November, 2023, giving athletes ample time to prepare. Further, they declined the request of the Appellant for reconsideration of her trial scores and highlighted that she did not participate in the events that could have improved her ranking. During the initial hearing, the court issued a notice and sought instructions from the NRAI about allowing the Appellant to participate in the trials, however, NRAI expressed it inability to accommodate the Appellant, aggrieved of which, the Appellant approached the Delhi High Court.
ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the amendment to the selection criteria by the NRAI in November, 2023 justifiable and reasonable, especially after the original criteria was already set in October, 2022?
Whether the Appellant would have been allowed to participate in the Paris Olympic Selection trials despite the changes in the Selection Criteria and whether the change in the rules of the game unfairly disadvantages the Appellant?
Whether the NRAI was transparent in its communication about the amended criteria, and whether it provided adequate notice to all the athletes, inclusive of the Appellant, to allow them to adapt and meet the new requirements?
Whether the decision of the NRAI regarding not sending the Appellant to the 2024 ISSF Final Qualification Championship in Rio De Janeiro reasonable, given that the maximum quota positions for India had already been achieved?
Whether there was any evidence of favouritism or unfair advantage given to other athletes who were selected for the trials despite having lower QROG points than the Appellant?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Power of the High Court to issue writs
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the amendment of the NRAI for the selection criteria in November, 2023 was unfair and amounted to changing the rules of the game after it had already begun and that this change disadvantaged the Appellant as it altered the eligibility requirement she had initially aimed to meet.
The Appellant emphasized that her national ranking according to the QROG points was 4th, which was higher than some of the selected athletes like Nischal and Shriyanka Sadangi and that this should have made her eligible for the selection trials under the original criteria.
The Appellant asserted that if the original 2022 criteria had been followed, she would have been among the top five eligible shooters for the trials since other higher-ranked shooters lacked the necessary QROG points.
Further, the Appellant contented that her exclusion from the 2024 ISSF Final Qualification Championship in Rio De Janeiro prevented her from potentially winning a quota for herself or improving her QROG ranking which utterly disadvantaged her.
The Appellants asserted that her request for considering Trial 3 as a zero score trial was unfairly declined by the NRAI, affecting her overall ranking and eligibility.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the amendment of the selection criteria was necessitated by changes in the ISSF calendar, which extended the deadline for qualifying events and increased the number of opportunities for athletes to improve their rankings.
The Respondent asserted that the amended criteria aimed to increase the pool of participants in the selection trials, thereby selecting the best athletes from a larger group and that it was done in good faith to enhance the quality of the team.
The Respondent maintained that the amended criteria were uploaded on their website and circulated amongst all the athletes, inclusive of the Appellant, in November,2023, providing sufficient notice for them to prepare and adapt and that it was done in good faith and not on any capricious ground, thus, it isn’t considered unfair.
It was stated that India had already achieved the maximum number of quota positions allowed for the Paris Olympic, making it unnecessary to send additional athletes, inclusive of the Appellant, to the ISSF Final Qualification Championship in Rio De Janeiro and that the athlete selected for the trial, inclusive of those with a lower QROG ranking than the Appellant, had higher national rankings overall which justified their inclusion over the Appellant.
Moreover, the selection criteria were developed by the experts in the field and were not perverse and that the criteria were designed to select the best athlete for the country’s representation at the Olympics.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Manini Kaushik Vs. The National Rifle Association of India & Ors., reviewed the original 2022 criteria and the amended 2023 criteria for the selection of athletes for the Paris Olympic selection Trials and observed that the 2023 amendments were introduced by the NRAI in response to the changes in the ISSF calendar, which extended the deadline for qualifying events and allowed more opportunities for the athlete to qualify. The court observed that the 2023 criteria were established in good faith and aimed to increase participation and competition amongst the athletes and that the amendments were deemed reasonable as they intended to select the best athletes from a larger pool, aligning with the objectives of the NRAI to enhance the quality of the team representing India. The court stressed on the fact that the selection criteria were developed by experts in the field of shooting sports and reiterated that the judicial intervention in such expert-driven decisions is limited unless the criteria are shown to be perverse or unreasonable. The court accepted the argument of the Respondent that the amended criteria were publicly disclosed in November, 2023, providing sufficient notice to all the athletes, inclusive of the Appellant and that the lack of timely adaptation to the new criteria by the Appellant was not attributed to any fault on the part of the NRAI. The court acknowledged that the QROG ranking of the Appellant was higher than some selected athletes, however, the court observed that the overall national ranking, which was also a factor in the amended criteria, justified the selection of those athletes over the Appellant. The court supported the NRAI’s rejection of the request of the Appellant to consider her trial 3 score as zero, as the request was made after the deadline had passed stating it as not unfair disadvantage to the Appellant. The court established that the NRAI was not arbitrary and thus did not warrant judicial interference. Thus, the application of the Appellant along with any pending applications were dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
