Delhi High Court: In the present appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866, challenging the judgement dated 24-05-2024 passed by the Single Judge of this Court, wherein the Court dismissed the petition having no admissible evidence at the stage, the Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ. and Tushar Rao Gedela*, J., held that the Court finds no reason, much less any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgement passed by the Single Judge. The Court was of the opinion that the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (‘ADDP’) stands constituted for considering the case of the appellant, it would not be appropriate for the Court to interdict the proceedings at this stage.
Background:
In the instant case, the appellant states to be an international powerlifter with multiple titles including winning a gold medal at Asian Powerlifting Championship 2018 and states to also be an Indian Railways Powerlifting player and its employee since 2015. The appellant was a member of the respondent 3/Powerlifting India. Further, respondent 2 was the National Anti-Doping Agency (‘NADA’), an autonomous body originally established by the Government of India as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the year 2005, with the objective of acting as the independent national anti-doping organization of India.
On 12-05-2023, the respondent 2 collected a urine sample from the appellant, in order to ascertain presence of any prohibited substance therein. Pursuant to that, the appellant received an Adverse Analytical Finding Notice (‘AAF Notice’) on 19-09-2023 from the respondent 3 as well as an email sent by the respondent 2.
In the AAF Notice, it was alleged that Drostanolone Metabolite (3a-Hydroxy-2a-methyl-5a-androstan-17-one) was found in the urine sample of the appellant. As per the AAF notice, the respondent 2 imposed a provisional suspension on the appellant while noting that the appellant may choose to not accept the finding of A-Sample if she chooses to apply for B-Sample opening and analysis.
The appellant submitted the B-Sample arrangements form on 26-09-2023 to the AAF notice thereby rejecting the findings of the A-Sample. Later, the respondent 2 issues the Notice of Charge dated 27-12-2023 against the appellant.
On 03-04-2024, ADDP constituted the Hearing Panel, purportedly under the provisions of National Anti-Doping Rules, 2021 (‘2021 Rules’). Later in response to that, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court and the Single Judge had dismissed the petition in limine filed by the appellant.
Analysis:
The Court after perusal of facts and contentions was of view that, the Constitutional Court was precluded from issuing a writ of Mandamus to the Government to notify an act and bring it into force. Thus, the argument of the counsel for the appellant placing reliance upon the NADA Act was misplaced and was rejected.
The Court later noted that India had ratified United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation International Convention against Doping in Sport (“Anti-doping Convention”) on 7-11-2007, which had been framed bearing in mind the Code adopted by the World Anti-Doping Agency (‘WADA’). Therefore, in effect, India, having ratified the convention, had also agreed to make the domestic standards compliant with the WADA Code.
In light of the above, the position that emerges was that India, had ratified the Anti-doping Convention and was under an obligation to follow the international doping standards and 2021 Rules, which are framed in consonance with the WADA Code and in exercise of powers under Article 73(1)(b) of the Constitution, would have effect of law till National Anti-Doping Act, 2022 comes into force.
The Court then stated that the impugned order passed by the Single Judge was not examined on its merit or examined on the question of law and had merely granted liberty to the appellant to challenge the order to be passed by the ADDP.
The Court then was of the opinion that, the ADDP stands constituted for considering the case of the appellant, it would not appropriate for the Court to interdict the proceedings at this stage.
The Court in the view of aforesaid findings, finds no reason, much less any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgement passed by the Single Judge. Resultantly, dismissing the instant appeal.
[Sonali Chhaburao Gite v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4689, decided on: 09-07-2024]
*Judgement Authored by: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Debash Panda, Ishan Puri, Yasharth Misra and Sanchit Suri, Advocates.
For Respondents: Rohan Jaitley, CGSC; Hussain Taqvi, Dev Pratap Shai, Advocates for R-1; Manpreet Kaur Bhasin, Advocate for R-2.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
