Sports authority must decide disputed competition representation after hearing the petitioner and gold medallist.

The petitioner challenged the conduct and result of the Under-19 Boys 75+ kg Silambam quarter-final bout held during the Chief Minister’s Trophy 2026, Madurai District, on 9 September 2026.

She had submitted a representation dated 15 September 2026 alleging irregularities in the bout and sought preservation and examination of video recordings, CCTV footage, scoring records, referee sheets and other relevant material.

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 seeking directions for urgent consideration of the representation before the State-level selection process was finalised.

Whether the first respondent should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 15 September 2026 concerning the disputed Silambam bout.

Whether the petitioner and the athlete who had received the gold medal should be given an opportunity before orders were passed on the representation.

Whether the Court should itself grant interim or substantive relief concerning preservation of records, correction of the result, re-match, or participation in the State-level competition.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a limited mandamus requiring the competent administrative authority to consider and decide a pending representation.

The decision also applied the principles of fair procedure and natural justice by directing that the petitioner and the person who had received the gold medal be given an opportunity of hearing before the representation was decided.

No specific statutory provision, sporting regulation, or judicial precedent was cited or examined in the order.

The petitioner raised allegations concerning the fairness and accuracy of the bout and sought several factual and administrative remedies, including examination of original recordings and scoring materials.

However, the Court did not adjudicate the disputed sporting result or independently assess the evidence.

The Additional Government Pleader submitted that the first respondent would pass appropriate orders on the representation by 28 September 2026.

Relying on that undertaking, the Court converted the matter into a direction for administrative consideration.

To ensure procedural fairness, it required the petitioner as well as the person who had obtained the gold medal to be heard before the decision was made.

The Court therefore confined its intervention to directing the competent authority to decide the representation within the specified time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the reliefs sought in the representation.

The Court did not itself order preservation of records, alteration of the bout result, a re-match, or State-level participation.

No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.