Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2011 DHC 3066-DB
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2011 DHC 3066-DB
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Badar Durrez Ahmed, J) — Oral

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition challenged practices concerning the determination of players' ages for selection by the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA). The DDCA selects players in three age categories: under 16, under 19 and under 22. The petition arose from repeated instances where players' ages were found to be inaccurate, enabling older players to be registered in younger categories and thereby gaining an unfair competitive advantage.

The DDCA (respondent no. 4) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI, respondent no. 3) participated in the proceedings. During an oral hearing, the DDCA's counsel informed the court of current and proposed practices to address age manipulation. The court reviewed the parties' positions, considered the National Code Against Age Fraud in Sports and related medical-scientific literature, issued directions for medical examination and record-keeping, and disposed of the writ petition.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. How should the DDCA (and, by extension, State cricket boards) determine and verify the ages of players who enter competitions in the under-16, under-19 and under-22 categories to prevent age fraud?
  2. What medical, radiological or other testing methodology should be adopted at the entry point to arrive at a reliable age determination for players?
  3. What institutional procedures (e.g., medical boards, databases, complaint mechanisms) should be instituted to ensure that age determinations are accurate, persistent, and enforced throughout a player's career?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petition highlighted the problem of age manipulation and urged measures to ensure a level playing field in youth cricket categories.
  • The petitioner's counsel drew attention to the National Code Against Age Fraud in Sports (Ministry of Youth and Sports Affairs) and its Annexure-II ("Age Estimation Format") as a potentially useful framework.
  • The petitioner advocated that the DDCA should conduct MRI scans of the wrist of every player undergoing medical examination, relying on an Article entitled “The International Olympic Committee Consensus Statement on age determination in high-level young athletes” (Lars Engebretsen et al., Br J Sports Med June 2010 Vol. 44 No. 7) to support the use of MRI for certain age groups.

Respondent (DDCA) Arguments — Mr Maninder Singh

  • The DDCA acknowledged the problem of age manipulation and stated it shared the petitioner's concern.
  • The DDCA and BCCI had been engaged in dialogue to arrive at a methodology to root out age manipulation.
  • The DDCA's policy (aligned with BCCI) is to determine age at the entry point through medical examination rather than relying solely on documentary proof; the determined age would be maintained in a database and remain unchanged throughout the player's career.
  • State cricket boards are required to follow BCCI rules for selection and, as far as possible, the BCCI guidelines for medical examinations.
  • For implementation, the DDCA proposed that initial medical examinations be carried out by a Medical Board of three doctors; DDCA had arranged for Apollo Hospital, Delhi, to conduct these examinations in view of BCCI directions.
  • Mr Singh submitted that paragraph 'F' of Annexure-II of the National Code (radiological examination/MRI/CT Scan guidance) could be adopted by the DDCA and would not conflict with the DDCA/BCCI approach.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded from recognition of the practical problem — repeated instances of inaccurate age reporting producing an unfair advantage in youth cricket selections — and from the parties' representations about existing and proposed safeguards.

Key analytical steps taken by the court, as reflected in the text, were:

  1. The court accepted that creating a level playing field required reliable age-determination procedures and noted the DDCA's acknowledgement of the problem and its ongoing engagement with the BCCI to devise an appropriate methodology.
  2. The court recorded the DDCA/BCCI policy that age should be determined by medical examination at the entry point and that the determined age should be entered in a database and remain fixed for the player's career.
  3. The court considered the National Code Against Age Fraud in Sports (drawn by the Ministry of Youth and Sports Affairs) and specifically Annexure-II ("Age Estimation Format"), which prescribes general physical, dental and radiological/MRI/CT examinations and lists particular radiological views (shoulder A.P., elbow A.P. and lateral, hand with wrist A.P., pelvis with hip A.P.). The court treated Annexure-II as a useful template even though the National Code does not strictly apply to BCCI or DDCA.
  4. The court examined the scientific literature placed before it (the IOC Consensus Statement/Article by Lars Engebretsen et al.), noting that MRI of the wrist has been suggested as a viable screening tool for certain adolescent age groups (14–17) but that the evidence is limited outside that range and that MRI is not the sole available method for reasonably accurate age estimation.
  5. On these bases, and having regard to the submissions of Mr Maninder Singh that paragraph 'F' of Annexure-II can be adopted, the court articulated a practical set of measures to be implemented by the DDCA (summarized below) and urged the BCCI to endeavor to adopt similar measures nationally.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

Direct effect on parties (as ordered by the court):

  • Every player entering the DDCA for selection in any of the three age categories (under 16, under 19, under 22) must undergo a medical examination in addition to providing age documentation.
  • The medical examination is to be carried out by a Medical Board of three doctors (for the present, the DDCA has secured Apollo Hospital, Delhi) and will include, inter alia, the radiological examination/MRI/CT Scan as indicated in Annexure-II of the National Code. The Medical Board may adopt particular examinations it considers necessary for specific candidates; the Board will also carry out dental and general physical examinations.
  • Once age is determined by the prescribed medical process, that age shall be entered into the DDCA database and strictly adhered to throughout the player's career.
  • Specific complaints of age manipulation must be addressed to the honorary General Secretary, DDCA, and the DDCA shall act promptly without inordinate delay on such complaints.
  • The court expressed the expectation that the BCCI would endeavor to have similar measures adopted by other State cricket boards to ensure a level playing field nationally.

Broader implications: The opinion set out procedural and administrative directions to prevent age fraud in DDCA selections and suggested adoption by the BCCI nationwide. The text does not purport to lay down a new legal precedent; it issues directions in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction and disposes of the petition accordingly.

The writ petition was disposed of subject to the directions and observations recorded above.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Lokniti Foundation Petitioner v. Uoi And Ors S

    BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

    1. This writ petition has raised a serious issue which concerns the age of players in different categories who aspire to be playing under the banner of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA). The DDCA selects players in three categories:- (1) under 16; (2) under 19; and (3) under 22 years.

    2. There have been a series of instances where the ages of the players have been found to be inaccurate and this leads to an unfair practice inasmuch as players who are above a particular age category manage to get themselves categorized in a lower age category and, obviously, because of their age advantage they are able to perform better. As an instance, if there is a 21 year old cricket player and he is able to get his age registered with the DDCA as being 18 years, he would be in a position to play in the under 19 category of tournaments and thereby he would have an advantage over other boys who are genuinely under the age of 19 years.

    3. The requirement of creating a level playing field, insofar as the determination of age is concerned, has been raised in the present petition and has been recognized by the DDCA (respondent no. 4). Mr Maninder Singh, appearing on behalf of the DDCA, has informed us that the DDCA is as much concerned about the evil of age manipulation as the petitioner and that there has been an ongoing dialogue between the DDCA and BCCI (respondent no. 3) to arrive at a methodology which would ensure that age manipulation is rooted out.

    4. Mr Maninder Singh submitted that it is now the policy of the DDCA and also of the BCCI that when a player enters in a tournament of the DDCA or of any other State Cricket Board his age determination is done through medical examination and the DDCA or the other State Cricket Boards do not rely blindly on the age documents/certificates supplied by the players or their guardians. He further submitted that once the age is determined at the entry point a database would now be maintained and the age so determined would remain unchanged throughout the playing career of the concerned player.

    5. Mr Maninder Singh also informed the court that the State Cricket Boards (including the DDCA) are required to follow the rules framed by the BCCI for selection of players in the said three categories and also to follow, as far as may be possible, the rules set out by the BCCI for conduct of the medical examinations.

    6. Insofar as the DDCA is concerned, Mr Maninder Singh, submitted that from now on the medical examination of all its players entering a competition for the first time would be conducted by the Medical Board comprising of three doctors. For the present, the DDCA, in view of the directions given by the BCCI, has secured the services of the Apollo Hospital at Delhi for the conduct of the medical examination.

    7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the National Code Against Age Fraud in Sports which has been drawn up by the Ministry of Youth and Sports Affairs, Government of India. It is clear that although this National Code is not applicable to the BCCI or the DDCA, certain features referred to therein could be adopted by the DDCA. Paragraph 7 of the said National Code deals with the procedure for medical examination and Paragraph 7.1.1 stipulates that the medical and scientific testing parameters on which the medical examination is to be conducted must be as per Annexure-II to the said Code. Annexure-II is a document which is entitled - “Age Estimation Format”. A plain reading of the said Annexure-II indicates that there would be a general physical examination, a dental examination and a radiological examination/MRI/CT Scan (as applicable).

    8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the DDCA should conduct an MRI Scan of the wrist of every player undergoing the medical examination. In support of this plea, he placed before us an Article entitled - “The International Olympic Committee Consensus Statement on age determination in high-level young athletes” by Lars Engebretsen et al., (Br J Sports Med June 2010 Vol. 44 No. 7). In the said Article, we find that there is a reference to the estimation of age through the use of MRI Scans. It also refers to a study relating to male adolescent football players between the ages of 14 and 19 years from different ethnic groups, geographical regions and altitudes, namely, Switzerland, Malaysia, Algeria and Argentina. On the basis of the study, it was suggested that the MRI scan is a viable tool for screening players in youth competitions, particularly in the under 16 and under 17 groups. The Article also suggested that the MRI approach should be extended to other ethnic groups and other age groups also after appropriate study is done. As per the said Article, it was made clear that currently there is no evidence to support the use of MRI studies of the wrist for age determination of athletes below 14 years and above 17 years of age. It was also noted that the age determination by MRI bodes well for its future use, if a more accurate age prediction algorithm can be developed. From the said Article this much is clear that for a specific age group (14-17 years), at least, the MRI Scan is a viable test for determining the age of a participant. However, that is not the only method by which the age could be reasonably accurately estimated and that is the reason why Annexure-II of the said National Code, referred to above, has given the following parameters under the head of radiological examination:-

    “F. Radiological Examination/MRI/CT Scan (as applicable)

    Note : A single film of hand and wrist is sufficient for age below 13 years. Wherever radiological examination is not indicated MRI/CT Scan may be done.

    1. X-ray advised (as per requirements) :

    i. Shoulder joint : A.P view

    ii. Elbow joint : A.P and lateral view

    iii. Hand with wrist : A.P view

    iv. Pelvis with hip joint : A.P view

    2. Date of radiological examination :

    3. Name of the radiographer : Radiological findings:

    S. no. X-ray advised Findings Age inference

    9. Mr Maninder Singh submits that the above paragraph ‘F’ of Annexure-II of the National Code can easily be adopted by the DDCA as it does not militate against the approach of the DDCA or the BCCI. Consequently, there would be no difficulty in the Medical Board at Apollo Hospital proceeding on the said basis.

    10. From the foregoing discussion, the following points have emerged as a consensus:-

    (i) Every player entering the DDCA for selection under any of the three categories would be required to undergo a medical examination in addition to the age documentation that he provides;

    (ii) The medical examination will be carried out by a Board of three doctors of Apollo Hospital on the basis of, inter alia, the radiological examination/MRI/CT Scan (as applicable) indicated in Annexure-II of the National Code. It would be open to the Medical Board to adopt any particular examination that it feels necessary for particular candidates. Apart from the radiological examination, the Board shall, as is usually the case, also conduct a dental examination and general physical examination for arriving at the age of the concerned player;

    (iii) Once the age is determined in the manner indicated above, that would be maintained in the database of the DDCA and will be strictly adhered to by the DDCA throughout the entire career of that player;

    (iv) In case of specific complaints of players having manipulated their ages, the same shall be addressed to the honorary General Secretary, DDCA. Thereafter, action thereon shall be taken by the DDCA promptly and without any inordinate delay.

    11. These directions have been issued in respect of DDCA and we expect and hope that in order to provide a level playing field to all players selected under the aforesaid categories in different States, the BCCI would also endeavour that they are adopted throughout India.

    12. With these directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Lokniti Foundation Petitioner v. Uoi And Ors S
    (May 31, 2011)