Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects Paralympian Vinod Kumar’s plea for Rs 4 crore reward like Vinesh Phogat

“He had not actually won a medal, but was still paid a cash award of Rs 50 lakh instead of Rs 15 lakh. Vinesh Phogat participated in 2024, i.e., after four years of participation of the petitioner in Paralympics 2020. The respondent considered Vinesh Phogat’s case and treated her position as the silver medal winner. The petitioner cannot claim parity with Vinesh Phogat,” the May 6 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court noted.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal rejected Paralympian Vinod Kumar’s plea.

‘Bronze medal withdrawn at Tokyo Paralympics 2020’

• Vinod Kumar- petitioner, participated in the Tokyo Paralympics 2020 and secured a bronze medal (F-52 Category). 
• The expert committee of the Tokyo Paralympics 2020 disqualified him, and his bronze medal was withdrawn. 
• The Paralympics committee of India, through a letter dated July 4, 2021, forwarded a list of qualifying players and examined the claims of all the sportspersons, including Kumar.
• As per the notification dated September 5, 2019, Kumar was entitled to a cash award of Rs 15 lakh as a participant; however, the state government treated his achievement as fourth place in the Tokyo Paralympics and awarded him Rs 50 lakh.
• He claimed that Vinesh Phogat participated in the Paralympics 2024, and won a silver medal, which was withdrawn, but the state government still considered her as a silver medal winner and released benefits available to a silver medal winner.
• Kumar argued that his case was similar to Vinesh Phogat’s and that he also deserved the same benefits as granted to her.

‘Cash award of Rs 50 lakh for special case’

“He was entitled to a cash award of Rs 15 lakh as a participant; however, his case was considered a special case and was paid a cash award of Rs 50 lakh, treated as having secured fourth position,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court said.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that Kumar had not actually won a medal, but was still paid a cash award of Rs 50 lakh instead of Rs 15 lakh, whereas Vinesh Phogat participated in 2024, i.e. after four years of participation of the petitioner in Paralympics 2020.

Vinesh Phogat awarded 4 crore 

Senior advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal, along with other advocates, representing Kumar, submitted in the Punjab and Haryana High Court that Kumar had participated in the Tokyo Paralympics 2020 and secured a bronze medal, which was later on withdrawn by the expert committee. 

“His achievement was treated as 4th place at the Tokyo 2020 Paralympics. Vinesh Phogat participated in the Paris Olympics 2024. She won a Silver Medal. Her medal was withdrawn, still the respondent considered her as the silver medal winner and awarded a cash award of Rs 4 crore,” argued his counsel.

Deputy Advocate General Deepak Vashisht, representing the state, argued that Kumar cannot claim parity with Vinesh Phogat because she had participated in the Paris Olympics 2024, whereas Kumar had participated in the Tokyo Paralympics 2020. 

Additionally, his case was considered a special case, and he was granted a cash award of Rs 50 Lakh, the counsel for the state said.

Kumar cannot claim parity with Phogat: Punjab and Haryana High Court

• Kumar was not paid a cash award as a participant, whereas his case was treated as a special case and was awarded Rs 50 lakh; thus, he got a benefit that was not admissible to him. 
• He had already received benefits over and above his entitlement.
• The court cannot ask authorities to travel beyond its policy and award cash contrary to it, just on the ground that undue advantage has been given to another person.
• Kumar had accepted the cash award in 2021 and had not objected then.
• Vinesh Phogat was paid a cash award after four years; the petitioner cannot claim parity with respect to an event which occurred more than 3 years later.
• If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, every player would claim parity with a player who participates after a couple of years. 
• He could also argue that the reward given during his time was much lower, while higher rewards were granted for the same achievement in later years. However, such a claim for equal treatment cannot be accepted. 
• The petitioner could claim parity with players who had participated in the Paralympics 2020, but cannot claim parity with participants of the Paris Olympics 2024.