Allahabad High Court
Ishmeet Singh Minor vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 30 October, 2025
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 4 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
Per Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.
1. Heard Sri Vipul Raj Gautam, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Kaur Gupta, Advocate along with Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner has been banned from participating in any tournament sanctioned by the respondent no. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned ban order dated 08.02.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 in addition to other related prayers.
3. The facts in brief are that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in his matriculation birth certificate, Aadhar Card and other documents is same and there is no discrepancy in respect of his age in any document. On 25.10.2024, the respondent no.2 directed the respondent no.4 to furnish the documents with respect to the date of birth of the petitioner, which were submitted to the respondent no.2 through respondent no.4, father of the petitioner on 27.11.2024. Respondent No. 2, Badminton Association required Adhaar OTP for age verification, however, instead of furnishing the Adhaar OTP, the petitioners father submitted representation. Thereafter respondent no.2, communicated to the petitioners father that the documents submitted by him are incomplete as per Standard Operating Procedure applicable at that time. Again, on 27.01.2025, Respondent No. 2 sent a reminder through E-mail to submit age verification documents, and as per that reminder, the petitioner was asked to submit the document required as per Standard Operating Procedure within three days. However, the father of the petitioner submitted the documents on 31.01.2023 i.e., one day after the deadline given by the respondent no.2.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a badminton player who has represented State of Uttar Pradesh in various badminton tournaments at State level. He further states that despite submitting all the required documents, respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order on 08.02.2025 and banned the petitioner from participating in any tournament organized by the Respondent no.2 for two years. He states that delay on the part of the petitioner was not intentional and he should not be given a disproportionate punishment just for delay of one day after the last date fixed in the submission of notice. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also undergone medical examinations twice for determination of his age in which his age has been found as per his documents and there were no occasion where his age was disputed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the petition and stated that the petitioner has not complied with requirements for the age verification for which the letter as well as reminder was issued to him. While defending the impugned order, learned counsel submitted that the documents were found incomplete because the petitioners father failed to provide the Adhaar OTP required for the petitioners age verification, consequently, the Badminton Association of India imposed a two-year ban on the petitioner from participating in any of its events due to the lack of age verification. Learned counsel further submits that Adhaar OTP was asked for the verification as per Standard Operating Procedure applicable at the time of notice to him to submit documents for age verification.
6. In rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requirement of OTP verification was bad in law in the light of judgement of the Supreme Court in case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1, where it was held that access to details of Aadhar except in certain exceptional cases is violation of right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that respondent no.2 revised his guidelines regarding Adhaar OTP verification vide its circular dated 28.09.2024 and admittedly the said requirement was done away with. The petitioner preferred representation dated 23.10.2024 through his counsel praying therein that respondent no.4 may be directed to withdraw the ban imposed on petitioner on the ground that petitioner has gone through medical examination and also as per circular dated 28.09.2024, Adhaar OTP verification is not required.
7. We have also perused the order passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati on 21.01.2025 in case of Jashwanth Mahamkali And The Unique Identification Authority of India Uidai and Others, Writ Petition No. 13094/2024, where the revised circular, i.e., circular dated 28.09.2024 was reproduced and the same is provided below for ready reference:
4. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has filed a Memo along with Revised Circular For Aadhar History verification during JR. Age group tournaments vide BAI/GEN /AADHAR/157/2024 dated 28.09.2024 issued by the Badminton Association of India, wherein it is stated as follows:
"... If any protest comes during Junior Age Group Tournaments, and discrepancies are found in Aadhar history verification the players will not be immediate disqualified or excluded. Instead, the following procedure will be followed:
1. Players will be required to submit their consent/affidavit confirming that their date of birth is accurate. Additionally, they must agree to cooperate with any subsequent investigation that BAI may conduct.
2. If any minor players (U13, U11), the consent of parents/guardians will be required for accepting responsibility for the information provided.
3. Players must provide documents as per the BAI Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to support their age verification.
4. If necessary, BAI will conduct a medical examination of the players to confirm their age eligibility.
5. If any player fails to provide the Aadhaar OTP for Aadhar history verification, they must submit an affidavit confirming the accuracy of their details. Failure to submit the affidavit will result in the player being ineligible to participate in the next BAI/State tournament and will not receive any certificates until the investigation is completed.
8. We have perused records and do not find any discrepancy whatsoever regarding age of the petitioner in any of his documents. Learned counsel representing respondent no.2 also does not dispute the fact that the Standard Operating Procedure, i.e., provided in circular dated 28.9.2024, does not require Aadhar OTP verification to verify age.
9. We have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and after considering facts and circumstances on the basis of records, we are of the view that the Respondent no.2, who is regulating and involved in the administration of sport of Badminton in India as well as representation of India in International tournaments while discharging various public functions is required to act rationally. The mandatory procedure prescribed by any institution must be in consonance with the current legal framework and knowing that the Adhaar OTP verification was done away with the authority that was ceased with the document could have got it verified from the verifying authority. The matriculation certificate is the most authentic document for age purposes than any other document in official matters relating to verification of age.
10. In the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to allow this petition directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation along with the required affidavit as provided in the presently applicable Standard Operating Procedure, before the competent authorities of the Respondent No.2 within two weeks and if such representation is made within two weeks from today, then the competent authority shall consider and decide the same within a period of four weeks thereafter and pass a reasoned and speaking order in the light of circular dated 28.9.2024 and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the order banning petitioners participation in tournament dated 08.02.2025 is put in abeyance to abide by the order to be passed by the authority afresh as directed above.
11. With the above directions, this petition stands disposed of.