Let Jwala play tournaments: HC tells BAI
11 Oct 2013 7:26 AM IST
In a relief to shuttler Jwala Gutta, the Delhi high court has stayed the Badminton Association of India (BAI) communication that stipulated that she will not be considered for participation in any national or international tournament inside or outside India in view of the disciplinary committee’s recommendation for life ban on her for alleged indiscipline.
Justice V K Jain, in an interim order, allowing her plea against BAI’s 7 October order, directed the BAI to allow her to participate in the Denmark Open Tournament scheduled to be held from October 15 to 20.
Justice Jain said, ‘prima facie, the action initiated against the petitioner (Gutta) could not have been initiated under Clause 18 of the Memorandum. The impugned communication of October 7 therefore, needs to be stayed.’
The court recorded Gutta’s argument that a three- members committee is to take a final view on the punishment recommended by the disciplinary committee against her and the BAI President has arbitrarily issued an order not allowing her to participate in the tournaments. ‘The Disciplinary Committee recommended that in the event of the petitioner submitting an unconditional apology to the President of the Badminton Association of India, it may take a lenient view and consider relaxation of the punishment proposed by the Committee.
The respondent No.2 is yet to take a final decision with respect to the punishment it deems appropriate to be awarded to the petitioner. In case the petitioner chooses to apologize as recommended by the Disciplinary Committee, respondent No.2 may take a lenient view and may let off the petitioner with a milder punishment such as fine, warning, caution or reprimand.
‘In fact, the emphasis in the report of the Disciplinary Committee appears to be more on the refusal of the petitioner to apologise and less on the nature of the misconduct attributed to her.
In the absence of a final decision on the penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner, the decision taken by the President/Secretary of respondent No.2 not to consider the petitioner for any national or international tournament inside or outside India would be rather premature,’ said the court. Justice Jain further said, ‘Respondent No.2, (BAI) in my view, ought to have waited for the final decision on the penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner, instead of taking such an extreme action in the meanwhile’.
Justice V K Jain, in an interim order, allowing her plea against BAI’s 7 October order, directed the BAI to allow her to participate in the Denmark Open Tournament scheduled to be held from October 15 to 20.
Justice Jain said, ‘prima facie, the action initiated against the petitioner (Gutta) could not have been initiated under Clause 18 of the Memorandum. The impugned communication of October 7 therefore, needs to be stayed.’
The court recorded Gutta’s argument that a three- members committee is to take a final view on the punishment recommended by the disciplinary committee against her and the BAI President has arbitrarily issued an order not allowing her to participate in the tournaments. ‘The Disciplinary Committee recommended that in the event of the petitioner submitting an unconditional apology to the President of the Badminton Association of India, it may take a lenient view and consider relaxation of the punishment proposed by the Committee.
The respondent No.2 is yet to take a final decision with respect to the punishment it deems appropriate to be awarded to the petitioner. In case the petitioner chooses to apologize as recommended by the Disciplinary Committee, respondent No.2 may take a lenient view and may let off the petitioner with a milder punishment such as fine, warning, caution or reprimand.
‘In fact, the emphasis in the report of the Disciplinary Committee appears to be more on the refusal of the petitioner to apologise and less on the nature of the misconduct attributed to her.
In the absence of a final decision on the penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner, the decision taken by the President/Secretary of respondent No.2 not to consider the petitioner for any national or international tournament inside or outside India would be rather premature,’ said the court. Justice Jain further said, ‘Respondent No.2, (BAI) in my view, ought to have waited for the final decision on the penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner, instead of taking such an extreme action in the meanwhile’.
Next Story
