'Sample Integrity Was Breached': Karnataka High Court Quashes 4-Year Suspension Of National Basketball Player Over Alleged Doping
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a 2022 order passed by the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel declaring Shashank J Rai, a senior National Basketball Player, to be ineligible for sporting events for 4 years after he was accused of doping. Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by the distinguished athlete of national acclaim and said “This Court finds the impugned...
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a 2022 order passed by the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel declaring Shashank J Rai, a senior National Basketball Player, to be ineligible for sporting events for 4 years after he was accused of doping.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by the distinguished athlete of national acclaim and said “This Court finds the impugned orders, which culminated in the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16-04-2024 vitiated by non-consideration of vital material, absence of reasoned adjudication and a palpable breach of principle of fairness.”
It added “The petitioner's plea was neither frivolous nor speculative. It was supported by material routed in plausible biochemical explanation. The Appellate Authority has neither called for further investigation nor explained its rejection of the material produced by the petitioner. The order therefore, cannot be permitted to stand in the eyes of law.”
Further opining that “The ignominy suffered by any sports person accused of doping is a unique and deeply personal form of disgrace that extends beyond mere professional consequences. It touches on their honour, legacy and identity often leaving indelible scars. It results in the athlete being frequently condemned on presumption of guilt which sometimes overrides due process. Once a sports person is found accused of doping, his past achievements become a suspect, as if victory was not earned but engineered.”
The court suggested that authorities who deal with cases of suspected doping to observe punctilious exactitude in the observance of procedure and consideration of all material produced by the sports person suspected of doping in an enquiry or an appeal.
Case Details:
The petitioner had questioned the validity of the provisional suspension order dated 26-04-2022, a formal notice of charge dated 13-07-2022 and the consequential decision of the Appellate Authority rendered on 16-04-2024.
A test that was done on the petitioner at the time when he was practising on 5-02-2022. The testing by the Anti-Doping Agency was randomly done both at the time of competition and out of competition. The said test is done at the time of out of competition as the petitioner was in practice. The urine samples of the petitioner are collected and placed in a sealed pouch. The sample is said to have been opened and resealed in Delhi where the testing of urine sample of the petitioner is done at the National Doping Testing Laboratory.
Later the National Doping Testing Laboratory on its own, after opening and resealing of urine sample sends to Federazione Medico SportivaItaliana (for short 'FMSI') to conclude whether the origin of 19-NA detected in the petitioner's urine sample was endogenous or exogenous. The petitioner was asked to give Rs 98,176, for testing of urine samples to be sent to Rome to detect the concentration of 19-NA/19-Norandrosterone substance if it exceeds 2.5ng/ml. On 26-04-2022 what the petitioner receives is an adverse analytical finding.
Then a notice of charge came to be issued against the petitioner on 13-07-2022, he was placed under suspension. He was alleged of committing violation of Article 2.1 and 2.2 of the National Anti Doping Rules. Following which the petitioner approached the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel. The Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel rendered its judgment on 11-10-2022, which upheld the suspension order.
The petitioner argued that the penalty or suspension imposed upon the petitioner declaring him to be ineligible for sporting events for a period of 4 years from 11-10-2022 is grossly arbitrary and is in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice, as also in complete violation of the mandate of the provisions of National Anti-Doping Agency, National Anti-Doping Rules 2021, the World Anti-Doping Code, 2021 and the procedures stipulated therein for the purpose of testing.
Further, it was contended that various procedural lapses has resulted in the petitioner's sporting career into complete jeopardy and has caused a dent to his reputation. Moreover, the precise quantity of the prohibited substance detected in the urine sample of the petitioner is not disclosed both in the notice of charge, and in the order of debarment of the petitioner. Nothing is deducible from the laboratory document package report.
Finally it was submitted that as a fundamental rule the basic test of concentration of 19-NA is to be conducted by the National Anti-Doping Agency at the outset. The initial test detected the presence of 19 NA which was less than 15 ng/ml. It was said that the petitioner had consumed edible parts of non-castrated male pig a night before the samples were taken.
The respondents contend that the country is a signatory to the Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping. India has undertaken to adopt appropriate measures at the national and international levels consistent with the principle of the World Anti-Doping Agency. If the writ petition is entertained notwithstanding the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal, it would set a wrong precedent and would proliferate litigation.
Findings:
The bench on going through the records said “The penalty imposed is in ignorance of the assertion of the petitioner that the presence of 19-NA in his sample was not a result of wilful ingestion of a performance enhancing substance, but rather an inadvertent consequence of consuming pork – a staple in the cuisine of his native, coastal Karnataka".
It noted that against the said penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. The memorandum of appeal counters every finding of the Disciplinary Panel. Notwithstanding the same, ignoring all the defence of the petitioner, the appeal comes to be rejected.
The court said,“The petitioner attributes presence of 19-NA to regular pork consumption, specifically non-castrated male pig meat, supported by bills and expert opinions. It further asserts that pork would naturally cause 19-NA to appear in urine. It is his assertion that Article 10.6 permits discretion to the Authorities to consider no significant fault or negligence. This discretionary mandate of terming the act of the petitioner to be that of negligence is not even considered by the Disciplinary Panel or by the Appellate Authority.”
The court said “This is in violation of sub-section (8) of Section 22 of the Act, which mandates fair hearing and reasoning requirements.”
Stating that the sample has travelled all over and Section 21 would require accurate, verifiable and documented procedure of sample handling, it said,“The case at hand is a classic illustration of breach of sample integrity, as is found in 69 Article 6.4 of the WADA code and Section 21 of the Act".
Emphasising that before the Appellate Authority Section 22 renders a right to the appellant to present evidence and call for witnesses. This would be in the realm of fairness. The Appellate Authority does not engage itself in any of the mandate of the statute.
The court held “Therefore, there is complete violation of the procedure stipulated to hold someone guilty of doping. The violation of procedure noted hereinabove, would undoubtedly render the resultant action unsustainable.”
It added “This Court is mindful that anti-doping adjudication operates under a regime of strict liability. However, strictness in liability does not mandate callousness in the process. The foundational requirements of principles of natural justice cannot be sacrificed projecting administrative expediency.”
Refusing to remand the matter back for fresh consideration the court said, “The debarment of the petitioner sprang in the year 2022. As on date, 3 years have passed by 3/4th of the period of penalty is already over. In the light of the unimpeachable explanation rendered by the petitioner with documents of sterling quality and the order of the Appellate Authority bearing no consideration/application of mind in the eyes of law, to give a quietus and permit the petitioner to continue his sporting career, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the orders.”
Appearance: Senior Advocate M.S Bhagwat for Advocate Satish K for Petitioner.
DSGI H Shanthi Bhushan for Respondents.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
Case Title: Shashank J Rai AND National Anti Doping Agency-India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.4710 OF 2024