Karnataka High Court: In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, filed by the Petitioner, an international para-swimming champion, for withholding the cash prize by the State Government, to which he was legally entitled, a Single-Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., directed the State to release the payment of Rs. 1,26,000 to the petitioner within two weeks, along with costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to be borne personally by the officials of Youth Empowerment and Sports department responsible for delay. The Court held that the State’s conduct amounted to a sad reflection on its functioning, particularly towards a person with disability, calling for not just a correction, but censure.
Background
The petitioner, having lost both his arms at a tender age due to a tragic mishap, embraced the sport of swimming and became a Paralympic athlete, earning glory for the State and the Nation. The petitioner represented the Nation in several prestigious national and international championships, securing numerous medals. The Karnataka Government on 30-11-2013 notified an Order to grant cash incentives for winners of medals at international Para-swimming championships, stipulating cash awards for persons with disability participating in such events.
The petitioner, claiming eligibility for a cash award of Rs. 6 lakhs, applied to the Department of Youth Empowerment and Sports on 07-03-2018. Despite relentless representations, no amount was paid. The petitioner was later informed of a subsequent Government Order dated 09-10-2017 regarding cash benefits for sportspersons, and he requested benefits under this order as well, but no amount was received by him. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 04-08-2023, seeking the cash award. Not receiving any response, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner participated in several National and International championships and won medals and trophies, including gold, silver, and bronze medals. The Court observed that the Government Order issued on 30-11-2013 earmarked substantial cash rewards to sportspersons with disabilities who secure medals in international championships. Under the Order, the petitioner, having secured two silver medals and two bronze medals in international events, became eligible for a cash award of Rs. 6 Lakhs.
The Court noted that the sporting events took place during the subsistence of the Government Order dated 30-11-2013, and therefore, it was undoubtedly applicable to the petitioner, having fulfilled all the conditions in the Order. The Court noted all the representations made by the petitioner, all of which were unheard.
The Court rejected the respondent’s contention of petitioner not being entitled to the award considering the disqualification or suspension of his Association, stating that such circumstances cannot deprive a deserving athlete his rightful reward, as the cash prize is awarded for the sportsperson’s effort in winning a medal for the Nation or State, not based on their affiliation with an Association.
The Court observed that,
“the focus must not be on bureaucratic technicalities, but on the living human spirit that triumphed against colossal odds. The Government’s duty is not merely administrative, it must be moral, constitutional and humane. When a man without arms dives into pools and emerges not just victorious, but triumphant on the international stage, the State is expected to salute that spirit, not stifle his rights by red-tapism.”
The Court further observed that leaving a disabled person, victorious on the international stage, to fend for himself for close to a decade with only partial payment was a sad reflection on the functioning of the State’s machinery, amounting to callous indifference and calling for censure. The Court observed that,
“A State that prides itself on promoting sports and inclusivity, cannot behave as a litigant, driven by obstinacy and pettiness. It must be a model litigant — fair, responsive, and just. All sports are equal; the sportspersons of all sports are also equal; the effort they put in is equal. It is unfortunate that the State pampers only a few sports and leaves the other sportsmen in the lurch, as they have left the one, in the case at hand.”
The Court held that the concerned Officers from the Department of Youth Empowerment and Sports must be held personally accountable and for having driven a disabled person to bear the brunt of litigation, the officers of the State must be mulcted with payment of exemplary costs, to be paid from their pockets instead of the funds of the State. The costs were to be imposed as a caution or to serve as a reminder to the officers of the State that justice delayed, especially to those who overcome the gravest of odds like the petitioner is, not only justice denied, but dignity diminished.
The Court allowed the writ petition and made the following Order:
- Costs of Rs. 2 lakhs payable towards litigation expenses to the petitioner.
- The respondents/State were directed to release payment of Rs. 1,26,000 to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
- In the event the amount of Rs. 1,26,000 was not paid within two weeks, the petitioner would be entitled to costs of Rs. 1,000 for every day’s delay thereafter, day-on-day, until the amount reaches the petitioner.
- The cost of Rs. 2 lakhs to be borne personally by the officials of the Department of Youth Empowerment and Sports, responsible for denying the petitioner his due, and the said sum shall not be drawn from the public exchequer.
-
The aforesaid directions were to be complied with within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
[Vishwas K.S. v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No.20895 of 2023 (GM-RES), decided on 21.07.2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Ashwini O., Advocate
For Respondents: Spoorthy Hegde N., HCGP.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
