The Supreme Court on February 25 issued notice in a Special Leave Petition filed by Indian badminton player Lakshya Sen, challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision refusing to quash an investigation into allegations of fabricating birth certificates to participate in underage badminton tournaments.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran issued notice and stayed coercive steps against the petitioners. The matter is now scheduled for hearing on April 16.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a private complaint filed by Nagaraja M.G., alleging that Lakshya Sen, his brother Chirag Sen, and their parents, in collusion with a coach from the Karnataka Badminton Association, manipulated their birth certificates to falsely reduce their age by approximately 2.5 years. The alleged purpose was to qualify for age-restricted tournaments and claim government benefits.
The complaint is based on information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. A departmental inquiry was also conducted against Lakshya’s father, a coach at Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy, where he was found guilty. The findings were confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Subsequently, the complainant requested the Trial Court to summon original records from the Sports Authority of India. After verification, the Trial Court directed an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Karnataka High Court’s Ruling
On February 19, Justice MG Uma of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the investigation. The Court held that there was prima facie material supporting the allegations and declined to interfere, stating:
“When prima facie materials are placed on record which constitute the offences, I do not find any reason either to stall the investigation or to quash the initiation of criminal proceedings. The complainant has placed sufficient materials before the Court, obtained through the RTI Act from the appropriate authority. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petitions.”
Case Details
• Case Title: Chirag Sen & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
• Diary No.: 9824-2025
The Supreme Court’s intervention offers temporary relief to Lakshya Sen, but the case is set to undergo further scrutiny in the upcoming hearing.
