Court stays AITA ban on Bhupathi, Bopanna

Counsel says Association’s decision unilateral

September 22, 2012 03:50 pm | Updated November 16, 2021 09:43 pm IST - Bangalore

Rohan Bopanna and Mahesh Bhupathi.

Rohan Bopanna and Mahesh Bhupathi.

The Karnataka High Court on Saturday stayed the decision of the All India Tennis Association (AITA) not to consider tennis players Mahesh Bhupathi and Rohan Bopanna to represent India till the end of June 2014.

Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar passed the interim order during the hearing on the petitions filed by Mr. Bhupathi and Mr. Bopanna challenging the September 13 decision of the AITA’s Ethics Committee, which was approved by the Executive Committee on September 15.

The court has also ordered issue of notices to the AITA and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.

The alleged “ban,” by way of taking a decision not to consider them for selection to represent the country, was taken unilaterally, without any prior notice and without giving them an opportunity to be heard, argued their counsel Aditya Sondhi.

Interestingly, the petitioners have pointed out that it was Leander Paes who threatened to withdraw from the Olympics, and at no time have they (the petitioners) threatened to withdraw from the event and have consistently communicated their willingness to make themselves available to be nominated together for the Men’s Doubles event based on their preparations together.

“However, no action has been taken against Mr. Paes, who was the only one of the three players, including the petitioners, who threatened the AITA with withdrawal from the Olympics if his wish to be paired with either of the petitioners was not acceded to and made this decision known to the AITA in writing,” they have stated.

Pointing out that till today the AITA has not furnished copies of the decisions of both the committees, the petitioners claimed that it was through a press release that they came to know that action against them was taken as per AITA’s Rule 36(a)(ii), which relates to suspension of players not placing themselves at the disposal of the AITA when required to represent the country and declining to do so without good reason.

Rule inapplicable

They further contended that Rule 36(a)(ii) is entirely inapplicable, particularly when they represented the country together in the Men’s Doubles event, at the Olympics based on the selection choice made by none other than the AITA.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.