Delhi HC rejects Sushil Kumar’s plea for trials
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent
New Delhi, June 6
The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected wrestler Sushil Kumar’s plea for a directive to the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) to hold fresh selection trials for the August 5-21 Rio Olympic Games.
Justice Manmohan ruled that the WFI’s decision not to select Sushil to represent India in the 74 kg category could not be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary.
Read: Sushil Kumar to approach WFI, larger bench of HC
The high court noted that Sushil had not won any major national or international tournament since September 2014, while Narsingh Pancham Yadav, who would represent India in the Rio games, had “as recently as in December 2015” defeated the silver medallist in the September 2015 World Championship. It happened in the Pro Wrestling League.
It also ruled that Sushil “cannot now seek a trial at this belated stage” as he had failed to take part in the selections in 2014 and 2015 as well as in the National Championship in December 31 and January 2016 and the Asian Championship held in February 2016.
It, nevertheless, acknowledged that Sushil “is a legendary wrestler who has won a number of laurels for this country in the 66 kg weight category. It is unfortunate that the said category was abolished in January 2014 and he has been forced to play in 74 kg weight category” without much success.
The fact that Sushil had been sent to Georgia and Sonepat for training this year “does not mean that it is mandatory to hold a trial today. This was done only to keep him as a backup in the event any unforeseen development, the high court said.
WFI was in a better position to decide the time of the trials and as such Sushil should not question the validity of the trials held 13 months prior to the Rio Olympics. The high court also accepted the contention of the Indian Coach that the wrestlers would be exposed to the risk of injury if trials were held now.
It also noted Sushil had been chosen for the previous Olympics, where he won a medal, without subjecting him to any trial and as such he could not demand a trial now.
The judiciary could interfere in the functions of any sports body only if its decisions were totally unreasonable and perverse and this was not the case here, the high court said.
