Denial of Boxing Trial Without Reason Is Unjust | Meghalaya High Court Directs Open Selection Process With Transparency | Written Intimation Must Be Given to All Candidates
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Meghalaya Single Bench of Acting Chief Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, has issued a directive ensuring transparency and fairness in sports selection processes within the State. The Court held that all future selection trials conducted for representing the State in sporting events must be conducted through open trials. It further directed that athletes applying for selection should fill requisite forms and declare their status, including whether they are serving as coaches. The Court mandated that decisions regarding selection—whether of rejection or acceptance—must be formally communicated to the candidates in writing.
The petitioner, Rfn GD Wanbuddien Syngkli, filed a writ petition against multiple respondents including the State of Meghalaya through its Sports and Youth Affairs Department, the Meghalaya State Olympic Association, the Meghalaya Boxing Association (MBA), and its President. The petitioner alleged that despite being an Army Boxer and having secured the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) and permission, he was not allowed to participate in the selection trials for representing the State in boxing competitions.
Represented by Mr. S. Thapa and Mr. S. Chanda, Advocates, the petitioner submitted that he had approached respondents No. 3 and 4—the Meghalaya Boxing Association and its President—with all required documentation, but was denied participation in the selection process. Furthermore, he contended that no reason was provided for this denial.
The petitioner had a history of active participation in events organized by the MBA, including the Annual Boxing Championships. The issue raised in the petition was specifically about the unexplained refusal to consider his candidature for the selection trials, despite fulfilling all eligibility requirements.
The respondents, represented by Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, contended that the petitioner had not formally offered himself for selection. To support this claim, the respondents produced annexures listing names of athletes from various clubs who had applied for selection. The respondents acknowledged that the petitioner had participated in past boxing events and confirmed his qualifications as a coach. They argued that the petitioner's engagement as a coach in certain capacities would disqualify him from being a competitor in the same event.
The respondents also noted that the particular selection event referred to in the writ petition—allegedly for the 5th Elite Men’s National Boxing Championships in 2021—was ultimately canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and no athletes were sent for participation.
The Court acknowledged the conflicting claims between the petitioner and respondents, specifically focusing on the issue of whether the petitioner had indeed approached the association for selection. Given the absence of concrete documentation proving such an approach, the Court did not pronounce on that point.
Justice H.S. Thangkhiew recorded the issue in neutral and clear terms: "what appears to be in contention is only the matter regarding the denial of permission to the petitioner to take part in the selection process, though the same has been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents who has again reiterated her submissions that the petitioner had never approached the respondents No. 3 & 4."
The Court ordered that the respondents No. 3 & 4 must, for any future selection trials for representation of the State in boxing or related events, mandatorily issue public calls for open trials. The Court held:
"Respondents No. 3 & 4, in any future events where selection trials are held to represent the State, shall call for open trials, wherein interested candidates shall fill requisite forms and also indicate whether they are a Coach in that event or not."
It further directed that only eligible candidates, conforming to the requirements of the sport’s discipline, be allowed to participate: "The candidates or athletes who apply for selection should be eligible in all respects as per the requirement of the discipline."
Lastly, to ensure procedural integrity, the Court mandated a system of written communication: "Rejection or acceptance after the trials should be furnished or communicated to the candidates in the form of a written format."
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Thapa, Advocate; Mr. S. Chanda, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, Government Advocate; Ms. S. Shyam, Government Advocate; Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Case Title: Rfn GD Wanbuddien Syngkli v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: MLHC:453
Case Number: WP(C). No. 267 of 2024
Bench: Acting Chief Justice H.S. Thangkhiew
[Read/Download order]
