Badminton player's challenge to Asian Games team exclusion fails as selection process deemed fair

Kerala HC dismissed writ petition challenging exclusion from women's badminton team for 2018 Asian Games. Court found selection procedure fair and transparent, with players informed of point-awarding basis and required tournaments. Despite challenge regarding Chief National Coach's daughter being selected, HC ruled no bias or patent illegality was demonstrated. Court deferred to selection committee's expertise in choosing between singles players versus doubles pair for final slots. Additionally, HC determined Karnataka HC had territorial jurisdiction since selection committee deliberations occurred in Bangalore, rejecting petitioners' argument that routing applications through Kerala authorities established jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion from the Women's team for the 2018 Asian Games.
2. Interim reliefs and timing of the writ petition.
3. Selection criteria and alleged bias in the selection process.
4. Territorial jurisdiction of the court.

Summary:

1. Exclusion from the Women's team for the 2018 Asian Games:
Two accomplished shuttle badminton players from Kerala challenged their exclusion from the Women's team selected to represent India at the 2018 Asian Games. They contended that their performance in the selection tournaments was superior to that of the included players, respondents 6 and 7, and alleged bias due to the involvement of the Chief National Coach, who is the father of the 6th respondent.

2. Interim reliefs and timing of the writ petition:
The writ petitioners sought interim reliefs to prevent the Badminton Association of India from sending the select list of players to the Indian Olympic Association and to restrain respondents 6 and 7 from participating in the Asian Games. The Single Judge refused the interim reliefs on the ground that the writ petition was filed belatedly, after the cut-off date of 30.06.2018. The petitioners then filed W.A. Nos. 1410 and 1411 of 2018, which were brought before this court for final decision.

3. Selection criteria and alleged bias in the selection process:
The petitioners argued that the selection committee's decision to prefer two additional singles players over a doubles pair was influenced by bias, as the 6th respondent is the daughter of the Chief National Coach. The court, however, found that the selection procedure was transparent and based on objective criteria. The Chief National Coach was deemed an indispensable constituent of the selection committee due to his expertise and close supervision of the players. The court upheld the decision of the selection committee, finding no material to suggest bias or mala fides.

4. Territorial jurisdiction of the court:
The respondent argued that the High Court of Karnataka had the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, as the selection committee met in Bangalore. The court agreed, stating that the cause of action arose in Bangalore, and the mere routing of applications through an authority in Kerala did not confer jurisdiction on this court.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition and the writ appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the decision of the selection committee. The court expressed sympathy for the petitioners but emphasized the need for them to move on and take defeat in their stride.

---