Parashooter moves HC after selection criteria change costs him Asian Games berth, court issues notice

Sandeep Kumar alleges a last-minute change in selection criteria unfairly denied him a place in India's contingent to the Para Asian Games in Japan in October.

The Delhi High Court | delhihighcourt.nic.in

New Delhi: Parashooter Sandeep Kumar has challenged a change in the selection criteria for the fifth Para Asian Games in Japan in October, saying it unfairly denied him the opportunity to represent India in the major multi-sport event held every four years for athletes with physical disabilities.

The para-shooter with 60 percent locomotor disability has pointed out what he calls the “arbitrariness” of the last-minute changes that led to him not being selected for the event at Aichi-Nagoya, Japan, from October 28-November 4.

A two-judge bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia has now sent the matter back to a single judge for reconsideration, after the Centre sends its responses.

The plea says that the eligibility criteria for the Paralympics Committee of India to nominate athletes to represent the country in international competitions were set by the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs on 24  September 2025. 

As per those, an athlete must have, in the preceding 12 months, bettered or matched the performance of the 6th-place performer in the previous Para Asian Games, or in an internationally recognised competition. 

Sandeep’s lawyer argued that the PCI has selected the Indian contingent based on trials that were conducted in Madhya Pradesh. However, the athletes who have been selected to represent the country did not meet the benchmark set in the Ministry’s September 2025 letter. 

It was argued that, while Sandeep has achieved medal-winning positions internationally in multiple competitions in the relevant 12 months, the Committee has instead preferred candidates who either have no international exposure or have not bettered or matched the 6th place benchmark.

Sandeep also accused the PCI of engaging in pick-and-choose treatment. The PCI issued a circular in June, stating that only the performances in the Madhya Pradesh trials would be considered for the purpose of selecting the Indian contingent for the ParaAsian Games. 

However, for some athletes, a departure from the said norms was made where their international performances after the May trials are also being considered, the plea alleged. This, it was argued, violated the June circular.

The event where Sandeep secured the score was the Al Ain 2025 World Shooting Para Sports (WSPS) World Cup, which took place in October last year.  

The defence argued that the September 2025 criteria were met by certain candidates whose names have been sent for the competition. They also said there is nothing wrong with conducting domestic trials for selection purposes.

The petition was initially heard by a single-judge bench, which on 28 July adjourned his case to 7 October, by which the selections would have long been over.

Pointing to the time-sensitive nature of his case, Sandeep moved the court again, saying he was the top-ranked Indian para shooter, and presently ranked 5th in Asia in the mixed 50m pistol category, and second all over Asian in the P5 Mixed 10m Air Pistol Standard SHI-1.

The plea filed through advocate Rahul Bajaj also pointed out that the deadline for selection was 31 July, so the matter needs to be addressed promptly.

Sandeep’s lawyer said he should be considered for wild card entry, the deadline for which is later this month.

A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia briefly heard the matter and sent it back to the single-judge bench for reconsideration after the Centre gives its response to the plea. 

The case will be heard again on August 5, and the court has now directed the parties not to delay their responses longer than a week. 

Before this, on Thursday (July 30), the two-judge bench also sought responses from the Centre, the Sports Authority of India, and the Paralympic Committee.

Broadly, the grounds for his selection, according to him, included his score of 543 in the P4 50 metre Pistol SH1, which refers to an open-gender Paralympic shooting event where athletes with lower or upper limb impairments compete.

Sandeep’s case & why he moved court

Kumar claims that he was “arbitrarily shut out” from representing the country at the 5th Asian Para Games. He has also argued that the 28 July order refused his main relief and rendered his petition before the court entirely infructuous or meaningless.

The score he secured in last year’s AI Ain World Cup comfortably met the minimum qualifying score under the Para Asian Games Bulletin, and the parameters set by the Sports Ministry for selection to the games, he said. 

Granting him relief would not require any alteration of the trial process, had no cost, and caused no prejudice to a third party, he said, while adding that there were two spots left in the Indian contingent still.

Denying him this “limited protection” and giving him a hearing date beyond the event itself left him without a remedy, prompting him to move the court again challenging the single-judge’s order, he said.

The circular which started it all

A major ground for Kumar moving the court was that the government had issued a circular on 14 June, according to which the Paralympic Committee locked the trial scores for the Para Asian Games, as the final determining factor for eligibility.

However, they failed to take into account that these scores expire under their own 120-day rule on 22 September this year, well before the games take place in October this year, he has argued. 

The plea claimed that policy was being applied selectively by allowing some athletes to count post-trial international scores towards the Asian Para Games eligibility, while denying Sandeep and others benefits.  

This is a violation of the disabled athletes’ right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, he said.

Apart from this, Sandeep also claimed that the actions of the committee and the SAI infringed his fundamental right to freedom of trade, and right to life, under Article 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

Finally, he also said that Section 30 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates the government and sports authorities to guarantee the effective participation of individuals with disabilities in sporting activities, was also being violated.

(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)