Shashank Garg, Ms. Nishtha Jain, Mr. Ranjeet Pawar and Ms. Niharika Tiwari, Advs v. NATIONAL ANTI DOPING AGENCY AND ORS

W.P.(C) 18158/2025 Page 1 of 8 $~110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18158/2025 and CM APPL.75135/2025 SHIV PRATAP CHAUHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shashank Garg, Ms. Nishtha Jain, Mr. Ranjeet Pawar and Ms. Niharika Tiwari, Advs. versus NATIONAL ANTI DOPING AGENCY AND ORS.....Respondents Through: Ms. Manpreet Kaur Bhasin, Adv. for R-1 to 3. Mr. Udit Dedhiya, SPC, Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Mr. Preyansh Gupta and Ms. Himani, GP, UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 02.12.2025 O R D E R 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, a National Wushu Athlete from Uttar Pradesh, inter alia, assailing a notification of ‘Atypical Finding’ dated 22.05.2025. The said notification reads as under: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 12:35:42 W.P.(C) 18158/2025 Page 2 of 8 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 12:35:42 W.P.(C) 18158/2025 Page 3 of 8 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 12:35:42 W.P.(C) 18158/2025 Page 4 of 8 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 12:35:42 W.P.(C) 18158/2025 Page 5 of 8 2. The background of the matter is that on 10.08.2023, during the 22nd3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that there was an unexplained delay of nearly 21 months between the sample collection (10.08.2023) and the ATF notification (22.05.2025). It is further pointed out Junior National Wushu Championship held at Patna, the petitioner’s sample was collected. The lab report dated 02.09.2023 recorded ‘Atypical Finding’ on account of a low pH value of 1.91, with no prohibited substance detected, and recommended further investigation. Yet, the respondents have treated the Atypical Finding as an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) and imposed suspension. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 12:35:42 W.P.(C) 18158/2025 Page 6 of 8 that a follow up test conducted on 07.05.2024 returned negative for all prohibited substances. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already invoked the appellate remedy by approaching the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel (ADAP). However, although the ADAP reserved its order on 18.09.2025, the order has still not been issued, thereby causing sever prejudice to the petitioner. 4. It is pointed out that the impugned notification of Atypical Finding dated 22.05.2025 purports to provisionally suspend the petitioner under Article 7.4.1 of the National Anti-Doping Rules, 2020 (NADAR). Attention is drawn to the aforesaid Article 7.4.1, which reads as under: “7.4.1 Mandatory Provisional Suspension after an Adverse Analytical Finding or Adverse Passport Finding If NADA receives an Adverse Analytical Finding or an Adverse Passport Finding (upon completion of the Adverse Passport Finding review process) for a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method that is not a Specified Substance or a Specified Method, it shall impose a Provisional Suspension on the Athlete promptly upon or after the review and notification required by Article 7.2. A mandatory Provisional Suspension may be eliminated if: (i) the Athlete demonstrates to the NADA’s Hearing Panel that the violation is likely to have involved a Contaminated Product, or (ii) the violation involves a Substance of Abuse and the Athlete establishes entitlement to a reduced period of Ineligibility under Article 10.2.4.1. The NADA’s Hearing Panel’s decision not to eliminate a mandatory Provisional Suspension on account of the Athlete’s assertion regarding a Contaminated Product shall not be appealable.” 5. It is pointed out that a suspension order is warranted only in the event of an ‘Adverse Analytical Finding’ or an ‘Adverse Passport Finding’ for a prohibited substance or a prohibited method. Attention is drawn to the Rules to emphasize that an ‘Atypical Finding’ is not equivalent to an ‘Adverse This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 12:35:42 W.P.(C) 18158/2025 Page 7 of 8 Analytical Finding’ or an ‘Adverse Passport Finding’. As such, there is no occasion to invoke Clause 7.4.1 to provisionally suspend the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid implications flowing from Clause 7.4.1. 7. The rules clearly carve out a distinction between the expressions ‘Atypical Finding’, ‘Adverse Analytical Finding’ and ‘Adverse Passport Finding’. The rules define an ‘Atypical Finding’ as under: “Atypical Finding: A report from a WADA-accredited laboratory or other WADA-approved laboratory which requires further investigation as provided by the International Standard for Laboratories or related Technical Documents prior to the determination of an Adverse Analytical Finding.” The definition of ‘Adverse Analytical Finding’ is as under: “Adverse Analytical Finding: A report from a WADA-accredited laboratory or other WADA approved laboratory that, consistent with the International Standard for Laboratories, establishes in a Sample the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers or evidence of the Use of a Prohibited Method .” The definition of ‘Adverse Passport Finding’ is as under: “Adverse Passport Finding: A report identified as an Adverse Passport Finding as described in the applicable International Standards.” 8. Considering the circumstances, the following directions are issued: (i) The ADAP is directed to expedite the consideration of the petitioner’s appeal and make an endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. (ii) Till disposal of the appeal, the provisional suspension of the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 12:35:42 W.P.(C) 18158/2025 Page 8 of 8 9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. 10. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved with the outcome of the appeal, it shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies under law. 11. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are based on a prima facie conspectus and shall not come in the way of the appellate authority deciding the appeal on its own merits. SACHIN DATTA, J DECEMBER 2, 2025/cl