A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan Singh and Justice Manmeet PS Arora considered the appeal infructuous as the trial had already ended.
"It is too late in the day. Your prayers are fruitless. It is over," the bench said, adding that the selected players need to focus on practice and competition preparation to avoid hampering India's chances at the Olympics. Is.
Kaushik's senior lawyer argued that he was unfairly treated and the single judge's decision was based on wrong information.However, the court noted that the hearing took place between 22 April and 19 May and pointed out that any complaints regarding his exclusion should have been raised sooner.
On 15 May, the single judge rejected Kaushik's initial plea against his exclusion, confirming that the selection criteria were prepared by experts and the court could not have rejected it if it was fair.
Kaushik had protested against his exclusion on the grounds that the National Rifle Association of India (NRAI) introduced new selection criteria in 2023, which he claimed unfairly changed his eligibility.
Kaushik argued that under the original criteria, she would have been among the top five candidates for the trials, as three other shooters who lacked the required qualifying ranking for the Olympic Games (QROG) points would have been left out. However, the single judge found that the 2023 criteria were not challenged and there was a valid rationale for their revision.The court also said that Kaushik's complaint about not being allowed to participate in the International Shooting Sport Federation Final Olympic Qualification Championship Rifle in Rio de Janeiro has no merit and supports the NRAI's decision.
Thus, the Court concluded that the selected athletes should be allowed to continue their preparation without any legal hindrance, confirmed the single judge's decision and disposed of the appeal as being moot.
"It is too late in the day. Your prayers are fruitless. It is over," the bench said, adding that the selected players need to focus on practice and competition preparation to avoid hampering India's chances at the Olympics. Is.
Kaushik's senior lawyer argued that he was unfairly treated and the single judge's decision was based on wrong information.However, the court noted that the hearing took place between 22 April and 19 May and pointed out that any complaints regarding his exclusion should have been raised sooner.
On 15 May, the single judge rejected Kaushik's initial plea against his exclusion, confirming that the selection criteria were prepared by experts and the court could not have rejected it if it was fair.
Kaushik had protested against his exclusion on the grounds that the National Rifle Association of India (NRAI) introduced new selection criteria in 2023, which he claimed unfairly changed his eligibility.
Kaushik argued that under the original criteria, she would have been among the top five candidates for the trials, as three other shooters who lacked the required qualifying ranking for the Olympic Games (QROG) points would have been left out. However, the single judge found that the 2023 criteria were not challenged and there was a valid rationale for their revision.The court also said that Kaushik's complaint about not being allowed to participate in the International Shooting Sport Federation Final Olympic Qualification Championship Rifle in Rio de Janeiro has no merit and supports the NRAI's decision.
Thus, the Court concluded that the selected athletes should be allowed to continue their preparation without any legal hindrance, confirmed the single judge's decision and disposed of the appeal as being moot.
