'No Vested Right, Will Open Floodgates': Delhi High Court Dismisses Tennis Player's Appeal For Participating In Deaflympics As Substitute Player

The Delhi High Court today dismissed the appeal filed by a specially-abled tennis player, seeking to participate as a substitute player in the upcoming Deaflympics to be held at Brazil in May 2022.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navneet Chawla observed that there is no vested right in the Appellant to claim that she should form part of the contingent that will take part in the event. It was of the opinion that if any mandamus in this regard is issued by the Court, it will open floodgates and similarly placed athletes will approach the Court seeking similar reliefs.

The Court further observed that it is open to the Respondent, Sports Authority of India, to take decision on the number of athletes to be selected to take part in the event, as the applicable Rules merely prescribe the "maximum" limit, and not minimum.

The Appellant claimed that she was initially selected for the Deaflympics. However, her candidature was recalled after the Sports Authority of India decided to take only 2+2 men and women players for Tennis team instead of taking minimum 4+4 men and women players for Tennis teams, as per the mandate of ICSD to the National federation, the plea alleges.

Her counsel argued that there was no rationale behind restricting the number to only 2 women players, especially in light of the fact that in 2013 Deaflympics, 5 women and 3 men were part of the Indian contingent. Similarly, in 2017, 4 men and 5 women were part of the contingent.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court said,

"The decision to take two athletes in women tennis tournament was taken as early as on 6th February, 2022. The said decision was taken in respect of several sports, including tennis. Having heard the learned counsels, we are of view that there is no merit in the Appellant's grievance. There is no vested right to claim that she should form part of the contingent that will take part in Deaf Olympics to be held in Brazil from May 1. It is open to the Respondent to take a decision on the number of athletes to be selected to take part thereof. It is not the case of the Appellant that another player who ranked lower to her in trials has been selected. Admittedly, Respondents have decided to take two players who ranked higher than the Appellant."

Earlier, a single Bench of the High Court had directed the Sport Authority of India and the All India Sports Council of the Deaf to include the Appellant herein in the training camp. However, no direction for inclusion as a substitute player in the games was passed.

Aggrieved thereof, the Appellant, Kirti Lata preferred the instant appeal, contending that in case the requirement appears to exist where one or more of the selected athletes are either injured or otherwise rendered unfit to participate in the event, then substitute or reserve athlete, like Appellant, can participate in the event even at the eleventh hour.

While dismissing the appeal, the High court made it clear that the right of Appellant in terms of the impugned judgment is reserved.

Case Title: Kirti Lata v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 276