Suspension Of Para Swimmer Prasanta Karmakar Accused Of Recording Videos Of Female Swimmers Upheld By Delhi High Court

Reiterating that the scope of judicial review over administrative decisions was limited, the court said,

“It is well settled that when a statute/law/bye-law gives a discretion to an administration to take a decision, the scope of judicial review remains limited and it is not permissible, unless the decision is contrary to law or has been taken without considering the relevant factors or where irrelevant factors have been considered or the decision is one which a prudent man would not have arrived at.”

Respondent No.1/Committee had suspended Karmakar from participating and being sponsored in any sports event organized by it for 3 years, after allegations of his recording videos of female swimmers through an associate at the XVI-National Para Swimming Championship surfaced.

Karmakar, who was acting as coach during the Championship, filed the petition challenging his suspension, averring that the videos were made for the purpose of training students. He further argued that under the Bye-laws of respondent No.1, punishment of suspension was restricted to certain contingencies, of which alleged misconduct did not form part.

Respondent No.1, on the other hand, averred that the petitioner was suspended considering the serious allegations, as well as the fact that he abused the Chairman, members of the Committee and parents of swimmers. It was urged that the court ought not interfere with the punishment imposed.

Though the suspension period of 3 years had expired by the time the matter came up for final hearing, the court examined the issues to satisfy its conscience as to whether respondent No.1 had power to suspend the petitioner.

At the outset, on a perusal of respondent No.1’s Bye-laws, it noted that the general code of conduct applied to both athletes and coaches (as well as their support staff), and no coach or official could be allowed to break discipline of an event.

“…the word athlete used in Clause 19.1.6 would mean to include a coach and a support staff of an athlete who participates in the games and all of them cannot be permitted to misbehave or use of uncivilized language or indulge in unlawful acts or act against the interest of Committee and welfare and development of Para Sports.”

Analyzing the decision-making process of respondent No.1’s Disciplinary Committee, it was observed that a show-cause notice was given to Karmakar and hearing conducted. The material against him was duly evaluated and the decision arrived at.

Among other things, since Karmakar had behaved in a rude manner with persons present in the stadium, as well as indulged in giving press interviews bringing down the interests of respondent No.1, the court concluded that the decision of the Disciplinary Committee could not be said to be unfair or unreasonable warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Counsels for petitioner: Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Satayam Singh, Ms. Mudrika Tomar, Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Mr. Rohan Chandra, Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Ms. Aarti Singh and Mr. Diwas Kumar, Advocates

Counsels for respondents: Mr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1

Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Ms. Shreya Jetly, Advocate for respondent No.3

Case Title: Prasanta Karmakar v. Paralympic Committee of India through its Chariman & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1155