Supreme Court Stays Coercive Steps In Age Fabrication Case Against Badminton Player Lakshya Sen

The Supreme Court today(February 25) issued notice in a Special Leave Petition filed by Indian badminton player Lakshya Sen, challenging the Karnataka High Court's order rejecting his plea to quash an investigation into the allegation of fabricating birth certificates to participate in the underage badminton tournament. 

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran issued notice and stayed coercive steps against them. The matter will now be heard on April 16.

As per the allegations made in a private complaint by one Nagaraja M.G., it is alleged that the parents of Lakshya and his brother Chirag, in collusion with his coach, who is an employee of the Karnataka Badminton Association, managed to fabricate their birth certificates by showing their age-less by about 2 and a half years. This was to enable them to participate in badminton tournaments and to claim benefits from the Government.

The private complainant is said to have been filed based on the information obtained under the Right to Information Act. It is stated that a departmental enquiry was conducted against Lakshya's father, who is a badminton coach working at Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy. He was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer and the same was confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority.

After the complainant requested the trial Court to summon the original records from the Sports Authority of India, and upon verification, the Trial Court referred the matter to police officer to investigate under Section 156(3) CrPC. Therefore, a first information report was registered against them under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

On February 19, Justice MG Uma of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition, observing: "When prima facie materials are placed on record which constitute the offences, I do not find any reason either to stall the investigation or to quash the initiation of criminal proceedings. There are sufficient materials that are placed before the Court by the complainant which are the documents that are obtained under the Right to Information Act from the appropriate authority. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petitions."

Case Details: CHIRAG SEN AND ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.|48 Diary No. 9824-2025

Appearances: Senior Advocate Aryaman Sundaram, Advocates Badri Vishal, Varun Joshi and Ayush Negi and AOR Rohini Musa appeared for the petitioners.

Click Here To Read/Download Order