BENCH MEMORIAL

JURISDICTION
Under Article 133 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India,1950.
Article 133 – Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from high court in regard to
civil matters. Case is pending hence 133 may not be invoked.
Article 136 – Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.

MAJOR ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable?
2. Whether the Bolam Community rights are violated?
3. Can a writ be brought against Catcher AI and NWB before the High Court?
4. Whether there is disproportionate punishment?
MINOR ISSUES
1. Whether Bolam community is subjected to discrimination?
2. Whether Actoprotector amounts to doping?

PROVISIONS TO BE INVOKED

1. National sports development code of India 2011

1.2. At the national policy level, sport is at par with public education and public health,
and like them sport is a public good and sport development is a public function. It
is for this reason that even though national sports bodies are autonomous in nature
both, the Supreme Court of India and several High Courts have, in various
judgments, maintained that although nation al sports bodies are not “State’ within
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, they come within the writ
jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because
they perform state-like functions such as the selection of national teams and
representing the country in international sports events and forums.
2. The World Anti-Doping Code: Prohibited List, 2024

The WADA Prohibited List may include any substance and methods that satisfy any
two of the following three criteria:

1. It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance.

2. It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete.
3. It violates the spirit of sport (this definition is outlined in the Code).
Substances or methods which mask the effect or detection of prohibited substances
are also prohibited. In addition, a substance which has not been approved for human
use is likely to be prohibited as well.

3. National Anti-Doping Rules, 2021

10.1.2- If the Athlete establishes that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the
violation, the Athlete's individual results in the other Competitions shall not be
Disqualified, unless the Athlete's results in Competitions other than the Competition in
which the anti-doping rule violation occurred were likely to have been affected by the
Athlete's anti-doping rule violation.

10.7 Elimination, Reduction, or Suspension of Period of Ineligibility or other

Consequences for Reasons other than Fault

4. National Anti-Doping Act, 2022

10. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board shall be responsible for ensuring
implementation of the international obligations and commitments and monitoring the
compliance thereof.

5. Constitution of the Wrestling Federation of India, 2022

Article VI – Powers and Duties of the Executive Committee

a) The Executive Control of Wrestling Federation of India shall rest with the Executive
Committee.
b) To impose or enforce penalties or take any other suitable action against any member
Association, Player and official for indiscipline, or for any other cause or action that
the Executive Committee may consider injurious or against the interest and welfare of
the Federation or any Association or member, or its objects or for any other reasons that
the Executive Committee may deem fit, provided two third majority members vote in
favour of proposal and adequate opportunity of being heard has been given. The action
taken by the Executive Committee is to be ratified by the Council.
c) To supervise the finances and accounts of the Federation.
d) To give financial assistance whenever possible to its members as may be in need of
it.
e) To appoint Special Committees for specific functions and assign duties whenever
necessary and delegate all or any of its powers to a committee.
f) To be responsible for the proper supervision of the Indian teams for National Games
and other games held under the auspices of the IOA, WFI, UWW and Asian Committee
of UWW during the period of games and their trip to and from the venue and for foreign
tours.
g) To consider the Annual Report prepared by the Secretary General and to submit it to
the Council with its recommendations.
h) To initiate and recommend to the Council schemes for promotion and development
of Amateur Wrestling in country.
i) To invest any money belonging to the Federation in such stocks, funds, shares or
securities as it may from time to time think fit, or in the purchase of immovable property
in India with the power of varying such investments from time to time.
j) To transfer or accept transfer of immovable or movable property on behalf of the
Federation and subject to the control of the Federation.
k) To provide buildings, premises, furniture, apparatus, and other means needed for
carrying out the work of the Federation and to frame rules, therefore.
l) To enter into, carry out and cancel contracts on behalf of the Federation.
m) To explain, define and interpret the provision of this constitution when disputed.
n) To decide the award or withdrawal of colour.
o) To exercise such other powers and to perform such other duties as may be assigned
to it by the Council.
p) To sanction expenditure upto Rs.5,00,000/- at one time.
CASES INVOLVED

1) Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 2677

The Supreme Court deliberated on whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)
falls under the category of "other authorities" as per Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The
court noted that while the government has some control over certain aspects of BCCI's
activities, it is more of a regulatory nature than administrative control.
The majority opinion, in a 4:1 decision, concluded that considering BCCI as a State under
Article 12 would lead to similar treatment for other National Sports Federations, resulting in
numerous litigations under Article 32. Therefore, the court ruled that BCCI cannot be treated
as a State, denying the aggrieved party the remedy under Article 32. However, the court
clarified that BCCI is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, allowing for judicial
review of actions falling within the realm of public law.
In this judgment, it was established that sports bodies, even if not considered a State under
Article 12, can be subject to writ jurisdiction due to their performance of public functions, such
as selecting national teams and representing the country internationally. Justice SB Sinha, in
the minority view, emphasized that bodies like BCCI, despite lacking a statutory basis, carry
out significant responsibilities towards players, coaches, and others. He argued that a body
involved in selecting teams representing the nation, promoting a sport of national identity, and
acting as a symbol of national pride, should be considered as performing governmental
functions. The judgment highlighted the importance of preventing arbitrary actions by such
powerful bodies, linking their actions to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Justice Sinha
noted that the government's guidelines demonstrated its concern for the decline in the standard
of the Indian cricket team in international sports events, emphasizing the special significance
of cricket in the hearts of Indian citizens compared to other entertainment events.

2) Narinder Batra vs. Union of India, 2009 ILR 4 Delhi 280

The Delhi High Court ruled that government guidelines regulating National Sports Federations
(NSFs) are valid, binding, and enforceable. The court emphasized the government's
competence to make regulations on NSFs and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) based on
Entry 10 and 13 of the Union List of the Constitution. While acknowledging the autonomy of
Sports Federations in conducting sports activities, the court highlighted that government
recognition is essential for representing the country internationally.
The court underscored the importance of international sporting events as a crucial aspect of
diplomatic relations, requiring considerations such as security concerns, apartheid, and human
rights violations. It asserted that no State Government has the jurisdiction to handle matters
related to political and diplomatic clearances for Indian teams participating in international
tournaments, as this fall within the sole prerogative of the Union Government.

Regarding the Indian Hockey Federation (now known as Hockey India), the court clarified:
a) The Indian Hockey Federation, recognized as a National Sports Federation, represents the
nation in international hockey matters and exercises comprehensive control over the sport at
all levels, akin to the BCCI's control over cricket.
b) The Federation is involved in team selection, appointment of referees and umpires, coaching,
and welfare of hockey players. It has access to national sports coaches and government-
maintained sports facilities. The team selected by the Federation at international events is
considered the Indian team and carries the national flag.
The court extensively referred to the Zee Telefilms judgment, aligning its decision with the
Supreme Court's stance. Consequently, the court held that the Hockey Federation is amenable
to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing its
performance of public functions.

3) Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India, (2014) SCC OnLine Del 2967
With respect to National Sports Development Code, 2011, sports federations and associations
shall be considered state with respect to legal proceedings.

4) World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Dance Sport Federation (IDSF) &
Boris Maltsev & Zarina Shamsutdinova, CAS 2009/A/1898.
The purpose of the World Anti-Doping Code is to protect athletes' fundamental right to
participate in doping-free sport, thereby promoting health, fairness, and equality for athletes all
over the world, as well as to ensure harmonised, coordinated, and effective anti-doping
programmes at the international level in terms of detection, deterrence, and prevention.
5) Sarah Klein v. Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) & Athletics Australia
(AA), CAS A4/2016.
In saying that, it must be emphasises that the circumstances which might give rise to such a
conclusion are likely to be very rare. This is because the WADA Code is already drafted with
consideration of the principles of proportionality.

6) World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Jessica Hardy & United States Anti-Doping
Agency (USADA)- severe sanctions must be considered only the situation is exceptional.

The AAA Panel remarked that ‘the overall effect of that one-year period of Ineligibility on
Respondent, taking into account the impact of Rule 45, is far in excess of what should be
expected when applying the principles of fundamental justice and fairness in the circumstances
of this case. This penalty is indeed, in the view of the Panel, evidently grossly disproportionate,
under the principles of proportionality.

7) Karam Jyoti V. Union of India, W.P.(C)--6815/2016

In a writ petition regarding non-selection for the Rio Paralympic Games, 2016 "Discuss Throw"
competition, the court held that decisions on selecting participants for international sporting
events should be left to the expertise of national sports federations. The court emphasized that
it cannot interfere in the selection criteria or evaluation of candidates, as these matters fall
within the purview of sports experts and authorities, not the court. Therefore, the petitioner's
request to quash the decision of the Union of India and the Sports Authority of India was
denied.

Another important provision.

4.4 Therapeutic Use Exemptions (“TUEs”) in National Anti-Doping Rules, 2021

4.4.1 The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers, and/or the Use or
Attempted Use, Possession or Administration or Attempted Administration of a Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method shall not be considered an anti-doping rule violation if it is
consistent with the provisions of a TUE granted in accordance with the International Standard
for Therapeutic Use Exemptions.
Therapeutic use exception. (National Anti-doping Act 2022)
5. (1) Where any substance or method is included in the Prohibited List and such prohibited
substance or prohibited method is required for use by any athlete on the ground of medical
conditions, such athlete may make an application to the Agency for granting Therapeutic Use
Exemption in respect of such prohibited substance or prohibited method. (2) The Agency may
consider the application received by it under sub-section (1) in such manner and after taking
into consideration such criteria as may be specified by regulations. (3) The Agency shall, either
grant or refuse to grant Therapeutic Use Exemptions in respect of the application received
under sub-section (1), in such manner as may be specified by regulations. (4) Any person
aggrieved by the decision of the Agency under sub-section (3) may prefer an appeal to the
Appeal Panel.