Writ of Declaration Rendered Infructuous by Passage of Time and Attainment of Majority by Petitioner

The Petitioner, initially a minor represented by her father, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that Rule 5 of the Rules of Racing of the Rowing Federation of India (3rd Respondent) was unconstitutional.

The impugned rule excluded Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) and Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) from participating in National Rowing Championships.

During the pendency of the litigation, which lasted over fourteen years, the Petitioner attained the age of majority.

1. Whether the exclusion of PIO and OCI candidates from the National Rowing Championships under Rule 5 of the Rowing Federation of India’s Rules of Racing is unconstitutional.

2. Whether the writ petition survives for adjudication given the passage of time and the Petitioner’s change in legal status.

The court primarily applied the principle of "mootness" or loss of relevance in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The original prayer is rendered infructuous when the attainment of majority and withdrawal of connected matters removes the live controversy.

The Court observed that the Petitioner, who was a minor at the time of filing in 2012, had since attained the age of majority by the date of the hearing in 2026.

The Court noted that a related writ petition (W.P.No.13308 of 2013) had been withdrawn on the same day.

The Bench reasoned that due to the significant lapse of time, the specific conditions and restrictions challenged in 2012 had "lost their relevance" in the current context, meaning there was no longer a live controversy requiring a constitutional determination on the merits.

The prayer for a declaration of unconstitutionality was not addressed on its merits because the cause of action no longer persisted; all connected miscellaneous petitions were likewise closed.