IOA dissolves ad-hoc committee for wrestling, WFI to take charge
New Delhi, Mar 18: The Indian Olympic Association on Monday dissolved the ad-hoc committee for wrestling, saying "there is no further need" for it to continue after revocation of the suspension on the national federation, which now gets complete administrative control of the sport.
The IOA said that the decision was also guided by the successful conduct of the selection trials for next month's Olympic qualifying tournament for which the panel collaborated with the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI).
The ad-hoc committee was formed in December last year after the sports ministry suspended the WFI, which got a shot in the arm when the suspension imposed on it by the global governing body -- United World Wrestling -- was lifted in February.
"The decision to dissolve the Adhoc Committee comes in light of the lifting of the ban on the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) by the United World Wrestling (UWW) and the successful completion of Selection Trials by the Adhoc Committee appointed by the IOA as per the directives of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi," said the IOA order issued on March 10.
WFI chief Sanjay Singh thanked the Indian Olympic Association for giving his elected panel control of the national federation.
"We thank IOA for giving us full-fledged control of the WFI. We will give all facilities to the wresters. We will soon organise a national camp and if the wrestlers want to train abroad we will facilitate that as well. The focus is now on the Olympics. We are hoping that 5-6 wrestlers will qualify," Singh told PTI.
The three-member committee, under the chairmanship of Bhupender Singh Bajwa was constituted on December 23 after the newly-elected WFI, led by Sanjay Singh, had allegedly flouted its own rules.
Earlier this month, the ad-hoc panel organised the trials to select the teams for the Asian Championships and the Asian Olympic Qualifiers in Kyrgyzstan to be held next month.
The protesting duo of Vinesh Phogat and Bajrang Punia competed in the trials and the former made the cut for Olympic qualifiers in the 50kg category.
Following the successful completion of the trials, the reins of the sport have now been formally handed over to WFI despite the continuing suspension imposed by the sports ministry.
The IOA instructed WFI to appoint a "Safeguarding Committee" to address concerns of sexual harassment and other issues such as adherence to rules.
"...as instructed by the UWW, it is imperative that the WFI appoint a Safeguarding Committee / Officer at the earliest to address the concerns of abuse and harassment and to ensure adherence to all rules, regulations, and guidelines set forth by the UWW and other relevant authorities," the IOA letter added.
"Furthermore, the WFI is also directed to conduct the elections of the Athletes Commission in a time-bound manner, in accordance with the established procedures and guidelines.
"This step is essential to promote athlete representation and participation in the decision-making processes of the WFI."
The order also instructed the WFI to "repay the loan" provided by the IOA to the ad-hoc panel for managing wrestling affairs when the national body was under suspension.
"The day I won elections, you know that it was a crown of thorns for me. Despite limitations, we tried everything, whether it was organising the Nationals (in Pune), or providing officials and referees to the ad-hoc panel for the recent trials after (Delhi High Court) court stopped us from organising trials (in New Delhi). I am sure that it is the end of the struggle for us," added Sanjay Singh.
A source close to the developments said he was "surprised" by the IOA's move to dissolve the ad-hoc panel.
"The Sports Ministry had suspended the WFI in December last year and it hasn't yet issued orders for revoking the suspension. Besides, the case is sub-judice, so it's surprising why ad-hoc panel was dissolved by the IOA," he said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
PIL in SC seeking action against racial violence targeting northeastern citizens
New Delhi (PTI): A PIL was filed in the Supreme Court seeking judicial intervention to address the "continuing constitutional failure" to prevent and respond to racial discrimination and violence against citizens from northeastern states and other frontier regions.
The PIL was filed on December 28 in the backdrop of the brutal killing of Anjel Chakma, a 24-year-old MBA student from Tripura, who succumbed on December 27 to grievous injuries sustained in a racially motivated attack in Selaqui area of Dehradun.
Anjel from Unakoti district's Machmara went to Dehradun after completing his graduation in Holy Cross School, Agartala, to pursue MBA, where he was stabbed to death in the presence of his younger brother Michael.
ALSO READ: Finish all projects without delay, says Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah
The family members of Chakma want capital punishment or at least life imprisonment for all the accused involved in the incident. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, a Delhi-based lawyer, has made the Centre and all the states and Union territories as parties to the PIL.
"That the present writ petition is being filed seeking issuance of writ under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, order, direction or any other appropriate writ for the violation of fundamental rights as under article 14, 19 (1) a & (g) and 21, and thus seeking judicial intervention to address the issue of racial discrimination and violence against Indian citizens from the north-eastern states and other frontier regions of India," the plea said.
"We are Indians. What certificate should we show to prove that?" words that tragically became the last recorded assertion of Anjel Chakma about his constitutional belonging before the confrontation escalated into brutal violence, it said while recounting the offence leading to his death.
The plea referred to media reports about Chakma's death.
The attackers allegedly assaulted and stabbed both brothers and Chakma sustained severe injuries to his neck and spine, remained unconscious throughout his treatment, and died after more than fourteen days in intensive medical care, it said, adding his death triggered widespread anguish, protests, and demands for justice across the country.
ALSO READ: NESO demands capital punishment for those responsible for killing Tripura student in Dehradun
"Issue an appropriate writ (ad interim till a legislation is made) in the nature of formulating comprehensive guidelines, recognising 'racial slur' as a separate category of hate crimes and determining punishment for the same," the plea said.
It sought a direction to the Centre and the states to create a "nodal agency or a permanent body or commission or directorate" at the central level as well as at the level of each state where such racial crimes can be reported and redressed.
"Direct the respondents at central level as well as at the level of each state to make and create a dedicated special police unit in each district/metropolitan area to address the racial crimes," it said.
The plea sought a direction to the Centre and the states to organise "workshops and debates at educational institutes on the issue of prevailing racial discrimination and ways to redress the same".
The petition said that despite the unmistakable hate-based and racial motivation behind the crime, India's criminal justice system lacks any mechanism to recognise or record racial bias at the initial stage of investigation.
As a result, such offences are treated as ordinary crimes, "erasing motive, diluting constitutional gravity, and perpetuating a pattern of impunity", it said.
The plea said that the killing of Chakma is not an isolated incident but part of a long-standing pattern of racial abuse and violence against citizens from the northeastern states.
The petition recalls earlier cases, including the death of Nido Taniam in 2014 and numerous assaults on students and workers in metropolitan cities, incidents that have been formally acknowledged by the Centre in parliamentary replies but, according to the petitioner, remain unaddressed through any dedicated legislative or institutional framework.
