Age Fabrication in Sports

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Chirag Sen and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another. (2025) has quashed criminal proceedings against Olympian badminton players for alleged age fraud, holding that continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process when competent authorities had already examined and closed the matter. 

What was the Background of Chirag Sen and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another. (2025) Case? 

• The case arose from a complaint dated 27th June 2022 lodged by Shri Nagaraja M.G. before the Police Inspector, High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru, alleging that Chirag Sen and Lakshya Sen had misrepresented their date of birth to qualify for tournaments in the Under-13 and Under-15 categories. 
• It was alleged that the players had gained wrongful selection and monetary rewards through this misrepresentation, with their parents—and coach conspiring to forge and fabricate records. 
• When no FIR was registered on the initial complaint, Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered as P.C.R. No. 14448/2022. 
• By order dated 16th November 2022, the learned Magistrate directed investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC following which FIR No. 194/2022 was registered on 01St December 2022 invoking Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• The appellants challenged the proceedings through three separate writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) read with Section 482 of CrPC, which were dismissed by a common judgment.  
• The appellants contended that identical allegations had been raised nearly a decade earlier and were subjected to scrutiny by competent statutory authorities including the Sports Authority of India (SAI), Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and Education Department of Karnataka. 
• The CVC had observed on 06th February 2018 via Official Memorandum No.017/EDN/038/370760 that Birth Certificate and 10th Class Certificate are final, and accordingly SAI closed the case against the appellants in view of the CVC recommendation. 
• The entire complaint was based on a solitary 1996 GPF nomination form which allegedly showed different birth dates, but this form was neither authenticated nor subjected to forensic scrutiny and did not even bear Lakshya Sen's name (who was not born in 1996). 
• The complainant's grievances commenced only after his daughter was denied admission to the Badminton Academy in 2020, with the FIR being registered in 2022 after a gap of nearly eight years. 
• The players had undergone bone ossification and dental examination tests at government-run hospitals including AIIMS, Delhi, and the findings supported the birth years as recorded in official documents.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar observed that the present case falls squarely within the category of exceptional circumstances warranting interference at the threshold to prevent abuse of the criminal process. 
• Justice Aravind Kumar noted that the entire edifice of the complaint is built upon a solitary document - the 1996 GPF nomination form - which is not only bereft of authentication but also fails to establish any fraudulent intent or act attributable to the appellants. 
• The Court observed there is an evident pattern of vindictiveness that permeates the complaint, as the complainant's grievances commenced only after his daughter was denied admission to the academy in 2020, with the delay, absence of new material, and apparent personal grudge collectively undermining the bona fides of the complaint. 
• The Court emphasized that the allegations are based on conjecture and surmises and are manifestly intended to malign the appellants, with no dishonest inducement or gain demonstrated, nor any wrongful loss caused to the State or third party. 
• Justice Kumar stated that allowing proceedings to continue despite institutional clearance by SAI, Badminton Authority of India, and CVC would cause grave prejudice to the appellants' sporting careers and undermine public confidence in investigative findings. 
• Regarding the applicability of criminal provisions, the Court observed that the complaint does not disclose basic elements required to attract Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC, with no allegation that appellants forged documents or knowingly used forged documents as genuine. 
• The Court noted that no person or authority was dishonestly induced to part with property or confer a benefit, and even taking the GPF form at face value, it was neither demonstrated how the players (who were minors at the time) or their coach had any role in its preparation. 
• The Court referenced Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998), to reiterate that summoning an accused in a criminal proceeding is a serious matter and should not be undertaken lightly, stating that "the present case is illustrative of how criminal process may be misused to achieve a collateral objective under the guise of legality." 
• The Court held that compelling sportspersons of national standing who have maintained an unblemished record and brought distinction to the country through sustained excellence, having represented India in international tournaments and earned multiple accolades including medals at Commonwealth Games and BWF international events, to undergo criminal trial in absence of prima facie material would not subserve the ends of justice. 
• Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order and quashed all further proceedings

What are the Legal Provisions in Relation to Age Fabrication in Sports? 

About:  

Age fraud in sports means the act where an athlete misrepresents their age in sports events so that they can have an advantage when it comes to age-restricted competitions. In other words, age fraud means and constitutes the action of deliberately misrepresenting one's age while producing fabricated or fake documentation starting from birth certificates, school certificates, PAN cards, and Aadhaar cards, to passports. 

Reasons for Age Fabrication in Sports: 

The reasons for committing age fraud can include: 

• Gaining the opportunity to participate in age-restricted competitions. 
• Taking advantage of physical maturity over younger athletes. 
• Accessing various opportunities like scholarships, government jobs, and reserved seats in educational institutes. 
• Sometimes all of this results, and aid in even breaking national records. 

Existing Legal Framework to Deal with Age Fabrication: 

National Code Against Age Fraud in Sports (NCAAFS) 2010: 

This code of NCAAFS was introduced by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS) in the year 2010, to uphold and substantiate core values in sports, including honesty, fair play, and team spirit and eventually eliminating the act of committing age fraud. 

Key Provisions of NCAAFS 2010: 

• Rule 4.2: National Sports Federations may lose recognition or government funding if they violate the code. 
• Rule 5: All athletes must undergo mandatory medical tests (physical, dental, radiological, MRI/CT) for age verification; an I-Card is issued based on the results. 
• Rule 8: The I-Card is the sole valid age proof for age-group events and remains valid throughout the athlete's sports career. 
• Rule 7.4: The government will bear the cost of these medical examinations.

Sports Federation Specific Measures: