Setback for Sushil as HC says trial not mandatory

New Delhi, June 2

The 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 selection trials for the Rio Olympics.

“The problem is, the sports code is nowhere prescribing that a 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 of two-time Olympics medallist Sushil Kumar, who has moved the court seeking directions to WFI to hold a selection trial to decide who will represent the country in the 74kg category at the Rio Olympics.

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

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

This move was questioned by Sushil’s counsel, saying “why the rush to send the name on May 3 when the 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 wrestler’s plea for June 6. While doing so, the court also observed that wrestlers were a small well-knit community/group, “perfectly aware” of the past and consistent practice regarding selections.

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

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

Regarding the court’s observation a day before that Sushil had taken benefit of WFI’s policy thrice, his counsel said no top level athletes came to the court saying they did not get a chance on those occasions and that his client cannot be blamed for what happened then. — PTI