Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Prasanta Karmarkar vs Paralympic Committee of India through Its Chairman & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:8337) - (High Court of Delhi) (20 Nov 2023)

Writ Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution can interfere in the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee, only if, the same are contrary to law.

MANU/DE/7737/2023

Constitution

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order passed by Paralympic Committee suspending the Petitioner from participating and him being sponsored in any sports event organized by the Paralympic Committee for a period of three years. The committee further recommended Haryana Sports Department to initiate strict disciplinary actions against the Petitioner.

The Petitioner was a coach in the XVI Para Swimming Championship and allegations were made against him that he asked one of his associates to take pictures of female swimmers during the event and continued to do so, even after, objection by the parents. The Petitioner also misbehaved with the Chairman of the Paralympic Committee when he was called for explanation of his act. A show cause notice was issued against the Petitioner to which he replied by denying all the allegations and was further called for personal hearing by the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee passed the impugned order.

It is well settled that when a statute/bye-law/law gives discretion of administration to any authority to take a decision then the scope of interference by writ courts remains limited. Writ Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee, if such, decisions are contrary to law or the decision has been taken without proper consideration of relevant facts.

The Court found that not only did the Petitioner took pictures of the female swimmers but also misbehaved and abused the Chairman and officials of the Paralympic Committee and gave interviews that brought down the interests of the Committee. Therefore, the Court refused to interfere with the decision taken by the disciplinary authority and stated that such decision cannot be said to be unfair or unreasonable. Petition Dismissed.

Tags : WRIT JURISDICTION   WRIT COURT   PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE   ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved