In W.P.(C) 9488/2022-DEL HC- Complete absence of any arbitrariness in Committee’s decision: Delhi HC rejects pleas filed by Swastika Ghosh & Manush Shah for inclusion of their names in list of players for TT team for Commonwealth Games Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma [20-06-2022]

Read Order: SWASTIKA GHOSH AND ORS v. TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS 

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, June 27, 2022: While observing that the Court in its writ jurisdiction can interfere only if its decision is illogical, suffers from procedural impropriety or shocks the conscience of the Court, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas of Manush Shah and Swastika Ghosh for including their names in list of selected players for the table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games, 2022.

The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma asserted, “It is a settled proposition that a mere mistake is not sufficient for this Court to exercise powers under Article 226. A writ can be issued only when there is something more than a mere error/mistake.”

The present writ petition was instituted by the Table Tennis players, Manush Shah and Swastika Ghosh seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to include the petitioners in the list of selected players for the men’s & women’s  table tennis team of Commonwealth Games 2022, respectively. It was further prayed that another writ of mandamus should be issued directing the second respondent to revoke the ratification granted to the four players selected by the first respondent for the table tennis team in violation of the existing criteria and in contravention of the provisions of the Code. 

The Court observed that it is a settled position of law that issuance of a writ is a discretionary remedy and the court can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction even if the petitioner may have a claim in law.  It was further noted that the court in its writ jurisdiction can interfere only if its decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards. The court cannot clothe itself with the power to make a choice and should not substitute its decision over a decision of an expert committee. It may be reiterated that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision making process and not the decision, added the Bench.

In furtherance of the same, the Court was of the view that a bare perusal of the findings of the Committee of Administrators made  it clear that the Committee had examined the entire issue and then after taking into account all aspects finalized the names of the candidates who would participate in the commonwealth games.Saying that the Court in the present jurisdiction cannot substitute its own view with the view arrived into by the Committee of Administrators and the Selection Committee, it also remarked that it was conscious of the fact that any such findings can be interfered with only if there is any perversity or arbitrariness in the findings arrived at by the concerned federation, the Court remarked. 

The Court also took into consideration the fact that the Selection Committee/ Expert Committee needs  to take into account several factors while taking the decision of selecting sports persons to represent the country. This exercise cannot be as simple as comparing scores based on individual performances.

In the present case also the Committee of Administrator weighed different factors and therefore, this court opined that it failed to find any arbitrariness or malafide in the decision arrived at by the Committee of Administrators and thus declined to intervene in the instant matter by exercising judicial review. Accordingly the petitions were dismissed.