Para shuttler Bhagat suspended for 18 months, to miss Paris Paralympics
New Delhi (PTI): Tokyo gold medallist para shuttler Pramod Bhagat will not be able to defend his title at the Paris Paralympics after he was handed a 18-month suspension for breaching BWF's anti-doping whereabout clause, leaving the Indian heartbroken.
"The Badminton World Federation can confirm India’s Tokyo 2020 Paralympic champion Pramod Bhagat has been suspended for a period of 18 months and will miss the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games,” the governing body said in a statement on Tuesday.
"In 1 March 2024, the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) Anti-Doping Division found Bhagat in breach of the BWF anti-doping regulations for committing three whereabouts failures within 12 months."
The 36-year-old, an SL3 athlete, said he is saddended by the decision and it was a result of a technical glitch.
"It is an extremely hard decision for me. I respect WADA, I understand they are drawing a line for all players, but to ban someone for technical reasons is not right," Bhagat told PTI.
"It is not like there is any substance issue, it is a issue of whereabouts failure, which I missed the test twice as I was in a different place but I have all the proof of filing the third time. But they didn't accept my appeal.
"It is a big loss for me. I was preparing for Paris, it is such a big thing for every athlete. I would have been a medallist. It is heartbreaking," Bhagat added.
Bhagat had appealed this decision to the CAS Appeals Division but it was rejected last month.
"On 29 July 2024, the CAS Appeals Division dismissed the Bhagat’s appeal and confirmed the CAS Anti-Doping Division decision of 1 March 2024. His period of ineligibility is now in effect," the statement added.
His suspension is effective till September 1, 2025.
"My team and I have been proactive in appealing this decision, citing the technical issues that led to these failures. Unfortunately, despite our efforts, we have not been able to resolve this matter before the upcoming games.
"We respect the decision of the authorities and will abide by it, but this has been a challenging and emotional time for me as an athlete who has always competed with integrity."
Bhagat had won a gold medal at the Tokyo Paralympics in men's singles SL3 category, beating Daniel Bethell of Great Britain in the final.
The 36-year-old Bihar-born shuttler had equalled the legendary Lin Dan of China by winning a fifth World Championships title in February last year at Pattaya, Thailand.
"It is extremely sad and unfortunate. He was a sure shot medal for India at the Paralympics but he is a fighter and I am sure he will come back stronger," Indian para-badminton head coach Gaurav Khanna told PTI.
Bhagat, who had contracted polio, resulting in a disability affecting his left leg at the age of five, is also a two-time Asian Games gold-medallist and is the current world No 3 in his category.
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.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
