Giving a clear indication that it was likely to pass a judgment in favour of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) in the tiff over selection trials for the Rio Olypics, the Delhi High court on Thursday observed that it did not find "any statutory mandate" to hold trials before the Olympics. In his plea, Sushil Kumar said trials must be held for selecting who would represent the country in the 74kg category at the Rio Games. During arguments, senior advocate Amit Sibal said the Sports code made it mandatory for trials to be held, and the WFI was obliged to create rules for selection and publish the final procedure. Justice Manmohan however observed that 'there is no statutory mandate' in the sports code to hold trials. “I do not find any statutory mandate. The Union of India has clearly said in its affidavit that we have given autonomy to the federations,” observed the court. "Sports ministry regulations say NSF can hold trials or judiciously nominate the athlete who won the quota directly. Flexibility is given to the NSFs." Going on the offensive in the concluding arguments before the court, the WFI on Thursday also alleged that grappler Sushil kumar had “misappropriated and misused” the public funds spent by the WFI in sending him to Georgia for training. “The government didn’t send him to Georgia to stay away from the Indian camp and train with the Georgian wrestlers. The government did not permit him to train with Georgian nationals,” said senior advocate Pradeep Dewan, on behalf of WFI. The lawyer also argued that Indian coach Vinod Kumar, and Georgian expert Vladimir Mestvirishvili had also not been authorized to go to the Georgian training camp with Sushil, as Vladimir was in fact on leave at the time. “Sushil did not train with our coaches in our camp. You can’t jump up today and ask for trial,” said Dewan. The WFI also told the court that the name of wrestler Narsingh Yadav had been finalise and sent to the Olympic association on May 3 to represent India at the 74kg freestyle wrestling competition at the Rio Olympics. “I can’t discriminate against Narsingh now,” said the lawyer, adding that while the WFI “does not have any animus against” Sushil, the case showed that Sushil was opposing Narsingh. Justice Manmohan also reserved his judgment on the plea filed by Sushil and has said that he would pronounce his order on Monday. The Court also indicated that it was likely to issue notice to WFI vice president Raj Singh for allegedly filing a false affidavit in which he had “supported” Sushil's claim for a trial. Raj had deposed in his affidavit that he was the chief coach in 1996 when a trial was held between Pappu Yadav and Kaka Pawar after the former won a quota. The WFI challenged both his claims, saying the trial was held back then because India had received a wild card. They also said he was not the chief coach at the time.
