The High Court · 2025

Order

Aggrieved by the action of Respondents 2 to 4 in- demanding Petitioner to share Aadhar OTP verification, petitioner is before this Court.

2. At the time of admission of Writ Petition, this Court, considering the material on record, passed interim order dated O6. 1 1.2O24 which is extracted hereunder: "

Notice before admission- Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. Aditya Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Sports ta-kes notice on behalf of respondent No. I and seeks time to flle counter affidavit. Sri N. Gangadhar, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Cricket Association takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 arrd seeks time to frle counter afhdavit. List on 20. I 1.2024. Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel draws attention of this Court to the recent judgmlnt, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Coirrt has taken judicial notice of Circular No.08 of 2O23 issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). In the said circular, it was clarified that while an Aadhar card may be used to establish identity, it does not serve as conclusive proof of date of birth. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further highlights the unreasonable nature of the respondents demand for Aadhar OTP verifrcation. In view of the same, learned Senior Counsel submits that petitioner possess other documents such as Passport, birth certificate, study certifrcates from 6th to 9th grade and Aadhar card which satisfy the BCCI's residency and identit5r verihcation requirement. However, ignoring these va-lid 2 documents, respondent No.2 is insisting for Aadhar OTp verifrcation which, according 10 the learned Senior Counsel is arbitrary and unjust and obstructing petitioner to participate in the tournament. In view of the above noted clarifrcation rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme C6sr1, there shalt be interim direction irsr prayed for

3. group for the season During the course of hearing, it I s informed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitionr:r. Sri p. Raja Sripathi Rao that Interim Order passed by this C)ourt was not implemented by Respondent No. 2 to 4. 4. The basic contention of petitioner is tLLat he is aged 1 5 years and ire played league matches ,:on<lucted by Respondent No. 2 and represented Responden No. 2 State team, participated in rnter-state zona-l matches 1br U_ 14 age 2022-23. He played Respondent No.2 leagues for the last three years and was the captain for U_ 14 Hyderabad team in South Zone Boys League Tour:nament heid in Goa. He also was the top performer in U_16 inter_school and junior college tournament and scored a total of 444 runs and is consistently among the highest scores in ,j istrict level matters stood thus, on 03.1O.2024, at around 9:26 pn, the father of petitioner received a c:all from the representative of Respondent No. 2 on his mobile rrumber and demanded to provide One Time password of Aadhar Card of his son which was sent to his phone asserting that it is necessa-ry tournaments. While 3 under the direction of senior ofhcials of Respondent No. 2. In spite of refusal by the father of Petitioner, the said representative unauthorisedly accessed -_Petitioner's Aadhar details resulting in generating two OTPs through BT-AADHAR. and on refusal to share the same, the representative of Respondent No.2 had threatened father of Petitioner about the negalive consequences of his son's future cricket career and threatened to obstruct Petitioner's participation in Respondent No. 2 tournaments, leagues and other BCCI tournaments. The father of Petitioner sent e mail to Respondent No. 4 on O4.1O.2O24, reporting the incidents of demand of OTP on O3.IO.2O24. The contents of e mail are very categorical and in brief amounts to raising objection for demanding OTP of Aadhar. The contents of e mail dated 04.1O.2O24 is extracted in Writ Affidavit. Admittedly, there is no response from Respondent No. 2 to e mail, thereby the father of Petitioner approached one of the Apex Council Member who, in turn, responded by addressing e mail to the President, Secretary and the CEO of Respondent No. 2 Association. However, there is no response to the said e mail dated 06.10.2024 issued by the Apex Council Member by the Respondent No. 2. The fat-her of Petitioner, ot O7.1O.2O24, lodged a report with police on 07.IO.2O24 and FIR No. 955 of 2024 was 4 registered for the offences under Sections 3lg(21, 3Og and 316 of BNS read with Sections 32, 3g and 44 of hadhar Act & Sections 66 and 72A of the Information Jechnologz Act, 2000. The said registration of FIR was followed up by s,-.nding another e mail on 08.1O.2024 to Respondent No.2 informing registration of FIR against Respondents 2 to 4. While matter stood thus, on lS.lO.2024, Respondent No.2 sent Whats App message to father of Petitioner to be present at Uppal Stadium rvith specihc documents for petitioner,s registration and in the list of documents that are sought by Respondent Irlt.2 includes passport size photo, digitarised Date of Birth certilicate, school marks certihcate, current year,s study Bona Jitles, piayer,s Aadhar card, pAN Card, Bank passbook/ Cancelled cheque and Passport (optional) and the specific emphasis or petitioner is that nowhere in the said communication, there was a demand for sharing of Aadhar OTp Verihcation for requirenrent as to the eligibility. Thereby the Aadhar OTp Verihcation was never mandated and sudden insistence is not supported by any official communication or requirement. context of player's explicitly mentioned It is the further case of petitioner 1.hat in the eligibility for BCCI tournaments, it is in the common player registration form 5 that deterrnination of age for U-16 Boys is relied upon TW-3 method of skeletal maturity while the eligibility for U-19 Boys is based on the chronological age. It is his, specihc case that Petitioner had successfully undergone TW-3 bone test . conducted on O9.O9.2O24 by Respondent No. 2 and he had passed the said test and report is in possession and custody of Respondent No.2. In the guidelines issued by BCCI and Rules for Registration, it is not the mandate to share Aadhar OTP Verification for considering eligibility of player. From the guidelines of BCCI, Aadhar details are one of the sevbral documents for proof of residence along with other alternatives like Passport or Voter ID, thereby, demand of the representative of Respondent No.2 to share Aadhar OTP Verihcation is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jttstice K. Puttasuamg (Retd.,) v. Union oJ Indiat, wherein it has been held that privacy is an intrinsic part of right of life and personal liberty. Further, recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken noLice of Circular No. 8 of 2023 issued by Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). In the said circular, it was clarifred that while an Aadhar card may be used to establish identity, it need not serve as a conclusive proof of date of birth. The law laid down by the Supreme Court mentioned '(2017) Io scc I 6 supra, in clear terms, demonstrates that demanrl for sharing of OTP verihcatron, overlooking other documents nzrrnely Passport, Birth Cerlrficate, Study certificates from 6th to ')h grade and Aadhar Card is an action of vindictiveness by Respondents 2 to

5. To the said Writ Petition, respondents hled counter asserting that BCCI had issued guidelines for on line registration of players for the season 2024-25 uide instructions dated 09.O8.2O2.4 ar-d the players opting to register on line must submit a de t:riled application form namely - a) Scalned Ori6iinal Copy of Computer-generated Date of Birlh (lertificate b) Scanned Origrnal Copy of School Marksheet or school lei[ing certificate or Schoot/ College Bonalide certilicate c) Scanned Origrnai Copy of PAN Card d) Scanned Original Copy of Cancelled Cheque e) Scanned Origrnal Copy of GST Registration Certihcate (if tpplicabte) f) Scanned Ori6linal Copy of Address Proof (Passport / Vol:er ID / Aadhar /Aadhar Update tlistory g) Scanned Origrrral Copy of Employment Proof As per Clause 20 of BCCI guidelines, it is mandate to provirle Aadhar Update History when a player is opting for presenting the Aadhar ()ard as proof of add re ss. Since Petitioner failed to provide Aa.dhar Update history, the agent of Respondent No.2 Assocjation has contacted the father and sought for generation of Aadhar Update History for uploading the same , howevt:r, the latter refused to share the OTP which was generated an(l lodged false complaints agair-rst Respondents with the police. \iVhile matters stood thus, Rcspondent No. 2 received an e mail communication 1 from an ID named 'SAVE CRICKET" ([email protected]) stating that Petitioner has two different date of birth certihcates suggesting possible age manipulation along_with a copy of birth certihcate with a specific direction to Respondent No. 2 to investigate before registering Petitioner and as per the said direction of BCCI, Respondent No. 2 conducted investigation and found that Petitioner has two Birth certilicates dated

08.12.2OO9 registered on lO.l2.2OO9 and another certificate by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation with a date of birth as 08.02.2009 and the date of registration as 17.O2.2OO9'and registration of Petitioner was kept on hold as such he is prevented from playing matches and it is also the case of Respondents 2 to 4 that there is a grievance redressal mechanism in the Rules and Regulations of Respondent No.2 and any stakeholders having grievance against the Association shall approach the Ombudsman and since there is an alternative remedy, Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no coercion by Respondents 2 to 4 much less with an intent to compromise Petitioner's data security nor there is an insistence/exert-ing undue influence for the provisions of the said data and the allegation that Respondent No. 2 - Association is trying to 8 misuse Peti[ioner's private data, is in violation ol the.provisions of the Aadl-rar Act, 2016. The on line registration guidglines issued by BCCI dated 09.08. 2024, registration of player was nrzmdated to be made on line and accordingiy, players who ha,j provided the Aadhar as proof o[ residence/ address were to provide Aadhar updated history_ While stating so, Respondent No. 2 avers that Aadhar updatc history is the only source of infornation which reflects as to the modihcation of Aadhar data in the relevant point of time u'l-rich not only authenlicates the actual Date of Birl h of the individuat but also reflects if the i.dividual has modihed his clate of birth in the past and that BCCI had made it mandatory for the provision of Aadhar Update History to confirm the Date of Birth of the individual appli<:ant as such Aadhar Update history is mandatory document to be provided for confirming the Date of Birth of the individual; while stating so, a contra pieading is also taken by Respondent N.o. 2 wherein it is admitted that there is no mention of l\adhar OTp Verification as ir was not a mandatory yet the r\adhar card requires Aadhar Update History which is not provided by Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 admits that petitione r underwent TW-3 Bone test, hou'ever, remains silent about the ctetails of the I test. It is a categorica,l case in the counter of Respondent No. 2 that Aadhar OTP Verifrcation is not a process for conhrming the eligibility of the applicant (Petitioner) but only it was to help him in completing the Application. It has nothing to do with the ' eligibility of Petitioner or judging his capability as a player. Clause 20 of ttre BCCI Guidelines clearly specihes the Aadhar as proof of address and the same sha-ll be provided by Aadhar History and seeking of Aadhar OTP is not a mandate and that the same was sought with the consent of Petitioner and application of Petitioner was put on hold only due to the reason that Petitioner has two Date of birth certificates which are nothing but a proof of manipulating his age for the sake of claiming a position in the team and absolute deprivation of rights of other candidates.

6. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Sports and Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for HCA.

7. Both the parties have relied upon the guidelines issued by the BCCI. Important aspect of the said guidelines is extracted hereunder: "lt is hereby clarifred that: Under 16 boys' eligibility is determined on the basis of TW3 method of skeletal maturity and Under 19 boys' eligibility is determined on the basis of Chronological Age only. In the event a player's chronological age l0 is deemed indeterminable, the player will have to urrdergo further medical test as advised bv the BCCI." 8 The above content in the guideline. is unambiguous and the [an61r.rage shorvs lhat TW3 test report wil] rlecide the age determination of a player and not the contents ilnd details of Aadhar Card are not conclusive and cannot be the deciding factor of age determination for the players who uLre in the age category of under -16. Proforma of the player registration form shows thr: documents that are required for the pll/ers (Men and Women) to participate in BCCI tournaments (Junior and S'enior) for Season 2024 25 is also incorporated. From th.e above, it is very clear thert Aadhar and its update history is for the purpose of residential proof and nothing more can be inferred. 9- as proof of residence. Clause 20 mentions about r.rsage of AA.DHAR card "

20. Aadhaar Card as a proof of residence \d'e shall accept Aadhaar Card also as a prool c,f residence to consider a cricketer as local of that Association, subject :o the following conditions: Aadhaar should be issued, on or before 01.09.2023 bearing address within jurisdictions of the Association that player intends to play for 2024-25 season. Tl-rc players wrll have to generate their Aadhaiu card history, sirnply by visilir-Lg the belorv link: https: / ,1 resident. uidai. gov.in/ aadhar-updatehi{itory Or]ce you click onto the above link, please enter your 12- digit UID no. mentioned on the Aadhaar card & enter ).our Security code. u Ctick on Send OTP button you w"ill receive 6-digit OTP no. on your registered mobile no. Type OTP received and click onti submit button. It will take you to a page, where the history ofyour Aadhaar Card will be seen." he object and intent of Clause 2O is clear that Respondent No.2 cannot demand Aadhar OTP from the players seeking registration with BCCI and even otherwise, Aadhaar history cannot be a proof of determining the age of the player seeking registration and TW3 test is the basis for determining the age ofthe player who is below the age of 16 years.

10. Now it is necessary to look into the byelaws of Respondent No.2 Association. Though a copy of byelaws is not filed in this Writ Petition, during the course of hearing, in the batch of Writ Petitions filed against HCA, a copy of byelaws forms part of the record in Writ Petition No.35139 of 2024 and the same is being considered for the adjudication of this lzs.

11. It is apparent on the face of the record that on behalf of the petitioner e mails were extended during the period O4.1O.2O24 to 1O.1O.2O24. It is also an admitted fact that, Crime No. 955 of 2024 was registered at the instalce of father of Petitioner against Respondent No. 2 and its representatives. During pendency of Writ Petition, father of Petitioner had issued the letter dated 16. 11.2024tothe Secretary of Respondent No.2 t2 informing thilt as per the instructions of Commissioner of Police and the outcome of the discussions between fath er of Petitioner and Respondcnt No. 2, he had issued to withdriuv all petitions and accordingly, he had intimated Respondr:nt No. 2 foi . withdrawing cases registered by Jagdhgirigutta Police Station and Cyber Crjme PS. and said letter was acknowlcdged by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime so also by Jagdhgirigutta Police Station and in view of an amicable settlement, cases can be closed. Whilt: ma tters stood thus, Petitioner fiI,:d additional documents drrring the course of hearing, wher,:in father of Petitioner hacl produced Death Certificate of Baby Terli Shiva Ramakrishna sl-rorving the date of death as 0 I .08.2009 and there is an e rnail specifically addressed to Respcndent No. 4, CEO dated 74.1O.'2024 to evident that documents as sought by Respondent No. 2 i.e. HCA have been attached and there is no rebuttal to ( his e mail. On perusdl of the s;aicl e mail, attachments are clearly reflected. The aforesaid e mail is followed up bf issuance of another e mail dated 07. I I .2024 addressed to Secretary of Respondent No.2 r,:questing to sharing of information inter alia SAVE CRICKET. Admittedly there is no rcsponse from Secretary of Respondent No. 2 Association. On 16.11.2024, an e mail was addressed to l3 Secre[ary of Respondent No. 2 and the relevant portion IS extracted hereunder: "To, Secretary Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) Uppal, Hyderabad 1, T. Sivannaidu, father of Shiva Rama Krishna u16 cricket player. Humbly submit the following few lines for your kind consideration. I was called by the commissioner of police, Hyderabad for enquiry of a petition, After hearing my grievances, CP Sir advised me to meet the secretary of HCA to explain the facts relating to my son. As per the instructions of the Commissioner of Police (CP), Hyderabad, I met with the Secretary, HCA today, on 16.11.2024, after obtaining prior permission. I explained my grievances and emotional actions in front of the CEO to the Secretary. I sincerely apologize lor any hurt or offence caused to Sri Suneel Kante (CEO), Sri Ravi Kumar Reddy and others. I understand that emotions drove my actions, and I regret any personal allegations made. I am committed to withdrawing all petitions, including the Writ Petition (WP). I am confident that this matter can be amicably resolved. I request your acceptance of my apologr and closure of all pending matters in HCA relating to my son Shiva Rama Krishna, U16 cricket player Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. copy to CEO sir Suneel Kante. Sincerely, Terli Sivan Naidu 4309723907"

12. Considering all the documents and pleadings of the contesting parties, the point for adjudication is whether the demand for sharing of Aadhar OTP verifrcation or refusal to share Aadhar OTP verification, Petitioner can be deprived of his right to play/participate in the tournaments being conducted and to be conducted by the Respondent No.2 and by the BCCI?.

13. In this regard, Circular No. B of 2023 issued by UIDAI plays a crucial role in the present lis. " Circular No. 08 of2023 Subject: Accepting Aadhaar as a proof of Date of Birth (DoB) regarding. It has been observed that AUA KUAs are considering and accepting Aadhaar card/-Aadhaar as one of the acceptable documents for proof of t4 Date of Birth (DOB) 2. In this regard, a is pertinent to mention that, Aadhaar is rr unique 12 digit ID issued to a resident after he/she undergoes the enrollnent process by submitting his/ her demographic and biometric informatiotr. Once a resident is assigned an Aadhaar number, it can be used to authenti:ate the resident through various rnodes as prescribed under Aadhaar Act, 2016 und Regulations framed there under. 3. At the time of enrolment/updation, UIDAI records DoB as claimed by ttre resident, on the basis of the documents submitted by them, as specilted under the list of supporting documents lor Aadhaar enrohent, provided on the UIDAI rvebsite (https:/ / uidai.gov. in/ images/ commd,>r: /26 JAN 2023 Aadhaar List of documents English.pd|. Further, it is to be noted that Regulations 10(4) and 19A of the Aadhaar (Enrolm,:rrt and Update) Regulations, 2016, mention that verification of the enrolnrent and update data shall be performed as provided in Schedule III 4. ln this regard, attention is drawn towards Office Menrorandum dated 20.12-2018 issued b1' Meity through UIDAI, wherein it has been stated that "An Aadhaar number-can be used for establishing identity of an individual subject to authentication and thereby, per se its not a pro()f of date of birth" (copy enclosed). the Aadhaar Act, 2016 has been 5. This aspect of reiterated/highlightecl / stressed upon by different High Courts in'iecent judgments. The most recent one is given by the Hon'blt: High Court of Bombay, in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Unique Identiflcation Authority of india And Ors. dated 28.O7 .2023 (copy enclosed) 6- In view of the abore, it is required that use of Aadhaar, as a proof of DoB needs to be deleted from the list of acceptable documents. 7- This issues with the approval of the Competent Authorit). Encl.: As above. Respondent No. 2 or its representatives cannot

14. demand for sharing OTP generated in respect of Petitioner's Aadhar card undcr all or any circumstances and for whatever reason. More so, Circular No. 8 is very categorical to show that the demand made by Respondent No. 2 even for registration of player under the guise of faciiitating players for registration of player with BCCI sharing of OTP is not mandilt.orv. Further, Respondent No.2 cannot deny the fact and it is tLrrrebutted fact that Petitioner had already undergone TW3 test and passed the said test and the report is in the custody of Respondent No.2. l) Even for remote understanding of circumstances from the perspective of Respondent No.2 facilitating registration of player with BCCI, Respondent No.2 shall rely and. consider TW3 Test examination report for ascertaining the age of a player. And this - is the stand taten by the BCCI in the High Courts in Delhi and Madhya Pradesh, which are extracted hereunder: ORDER IT{ W.P.No.22375t 2024. DATED T9.I2 2o24

1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of india the petitioner has challenged the communi cation dated 22.04.2024 issued by the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association whereby he has been directed to get declaration from competent Court of law as regards his death of birth. 2. Earlier the petitioner had preferred an application before respondent No.I for enrollment. Along with the same he had submitted an Aadhar Car.d ln wtrich his date of birth was record ed as 26.07.2004. The same was in variance to his date of birth recorded in the other documents submitted by him hence explanation was called for by respondent No.l from him as regards his date of birth pursuant to which he submitted an affrdavit on 25.O1.2024 annexing therewith his new Aadhar Card in which his date of birth was recorded as 15.10.2O06_ On the basis of the same the impugned communication has been issued to the petitioner 3. An Aadhar Card is not a proof of date of birth though the same may be used as corroborative for the said purpose- The primary document as regards date of birth would always be the scholar regisier. In the scholar register of the petitioner of Gyansagar Vidya Niketan where he had studied his date of birth is recorded as 15.10.2006. Even in all the marksheets/certificates of the school the same date of birth has been mentioned. In the Birth Certificate issued by the Government of Madhya pradesh, Department of Planning, Economics and Statistics on 13.Og.2OC2 his date of birth has been recorded as 15.10.2006. 4. Thus, merely in view of discrepancy of the date of birth as recorded in the o1d and new Aadhar Card of the petitioner there was no justifrcation on part of respondent No. I to issue the impugned communicatiori to the petitione-r. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the daie of birth of the petitioner is 15.10.2006 as is recorded in his new Aadhar Card and not 26.07.2OO4 which was recorded in his previous Aadhar Card. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed off. LPA 52I2OL4 Board of Control for Cricket In India v. Aryan Sehrawat (2015 SCC Online Del t22L3l G. ROHINI, C.J.: Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short ,BCCI) preferred these two appeals aggrievedly the common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 2O.t2.2Ot3 disposing of w.p. (C) N;s. 5284/iOt3 and 52a3/2013 with the following directions: r6 "13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions; are disposed of with direction to the respondents to verify the genuineness and authenticity of the documents filed by the petitioners as proof of their respective date of birth, within four $,eeks from today. If such verifrcation, the respondents find that the aforesald documents are genuine documents, the\, \rould record the date oI birlh of the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 528412Ot3 as 27 .2.1998 and that of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5283/2013 as 3 tO. 1996 in their database and accordingly consider them for playing in the tournaments for . which they are found to be eligible, taking their date of birrh to be 27.2.199g and 3. 10. 1996 respectively." 2. The respond<:nts herein/writ petitioners desired to partioillate in Under-16 Tournaments organized by BCCI in the year 2Ol2-2O13 in ,vhich those who are born on or after 01.09.1996 were eligible to participate. However, in the age determination test conducted through Tanner-Whitc House 3 (TW3) method, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5284/2013 was derermined to be 16 years and 2 months as on 0I.09.2012. Similarly, the petitioner in W.p. (C) No. 5283/2013 was determined as 16 years and 5 months on the said date. Though the petrtioner in W.P. (C) No. 5283/20I3 was held eligible to play in Under- 16 Team giving him the benelit of six months, the petitioner in W.p. (C) No. 5284/2013 was held ineligible to participate. It is c.aimed by the writ petitioners that a s per the birth certificates issued to the writ petitioners under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, transfer certilicates issued by the schools where the petitioners studied as well as the passports, the date of birth of the petitioner in W_P. (C) No 5284/20 t 3 is 27.02.1998 and the date of birth of petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5283/2Cr13 is O3. 10.1996 ard thus both of them were within the age limit prescribed zLnd were eligible to participate in the tournament. Therefore, assailing the ,rr:tion of BCCI in declaring them ineligible to participate on the basis of the age determined by TW3 method, the peLitioners filed W.P. (C) Nos. S28al2013 and S2B3/2Ot3. 3. The wrrt petitions were contested by BCCI pleading that bone age test being conducted for age verification of the players by TW3 rrrettrod has been recognized as the most authenticated and screntihc meUlod by various National sporting Federations in India as well as internatiorl.rl sporis bodies; that prevention of age manipulation for competent advantage is of the factors underlying the Age Verification Program of BCCI to contarn the menace of maripulation of birth certificates which is rampant in South Asia; that the age testing process by GP method (Greulich-lylc method) which was being foUowed by the Associations earlier had accuracy rate ol+/-2(tw o years; where as the TW3 method has t.I.e accuracy rate of +/- 6 (six) monthi; thai the age determination by TW3 method was adopted in acc:r.dance wittr the directions of this Couft d a ted 11.10.2013 in CM No. 142i1l2013 In W.p. (C) No. 612/2011 titled I-okniti Foundation v. Union of India 4. Rejecting the contentions of the respondents, the Ieared Single Judge opined that it u.ould be highly unreasonable and unfair tc, ltr. -pr"r.."*.t despite submitting authentic and genuine documents rhey are ienied opportunity to play in a tournament meant for their age group merely because in the medical opinion their age could be more ,:hin i6 years. Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of with th€ above_ noticed direct ions observing as under: "1O. In my vie$', though there carl be no objection to the .espondeats subjecting a person seeking to play in a tournament meant lbr a particular age group to TW3 test for the purpose of verification of his age, but, if on such determination, and after giving benefit of margin of e.rror up to six months on either side, it is found that the age so determined vras resulting in t7 -by the person concerned being held ineligible to playin a tournament, the respondents should also take into consideration the documenta_ry bvidence, if -by aay, produced by him as proof of his age. If the documents Jubmitted such a person are found to be authentic and genuine, the respondents wouli not-be justilied in giving preference to the age determined through use of TW3 method over the age as reflected in such unimpeachable doimenta4r evidence. While determining the age of such a persdnl the respondents would also be entifled to ask him to produce such other evidence as they may feel- necessa4/ and appropriate in a given case. If a person seeking to play in such a tournament does not produce documentary evidence which slould be available or ca:r be obtained by him, the respondents would be justified in relying upon the age determined through TW3 method and ignoring the documents produced by him. If, however, such a person produces all-such documents which he could be reasonably expected to produce as a proof of his age and such documentar5r evidence establishes thi age claimed him, the respondents would not be justified in discarding such documentary evidence and relying upon the determination of age thrtugh the use of TW3 method." 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeals are filed by BCCI contending inter alia that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered in the policy matter of BCCI poiicy matter of BCCI particularly in the absence of challenge to the policy of the Age Verification lograrnme of BCCI by the petitioners. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners that the order undei appeal does not suffer from any infirmity waranting interference by this Court. 6. As could be seen from the material available on record, from 01.04.2O10, the Ministry of Sports, Government of India adopted a National Code Against Age Frauds in Sports (NCAAFS). The said Code set out the proceduie for medical examination by medical and scientihc testing paramoun t which a::e to be conducted by Sports Authority of India and National Sports Federations. The Working Committee of BCCI at its meeting held on 12.05.2012 in Chennai resolved to adopt the TW3 poticy for all future BCCI Under-16 age group tournaments and the same was communicated to the concerned radiolory centres inviting them to be partners in the process. The details of how the test was to be conducted were also conveyed. The BCCI also conveyed to the affiliated State Cricket Assdciations the AVp Rules and Regulations of BCCI which are to be followed for all Under-16 players. The said AVP becami effective from OL.09.2O12. 7. It is also relevant to note that BCCI is the governing body for the sport of cricket in India. The Age Verification Progralnme has been undertaken by BCCI to ensure a level playing field for competitive participation of players in its age group tournaments by ensuring competition only between players of similar skeletal maturity. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Bccl, the petitioners rtever challenged the policy of BCCI to adopt a scientifrc method of determination of the age. It is not in dispute that, BCCI was earlier adopting GP method which is also one of the bone age testing rrretJlods for determination of the age of players. From 01.09.2012 onwards, the BBCI has started adopting TW3 method in the place of GP method since TW3 mettrod is found to be more authenticated scientifrc method all over the world. The fact that all the participants in Under-16 tournaments are subjected to the age determination test by TW-3 method is also not in dispute. t8

9. Under these circumstances the policy decision taken by IICCI for adopting TW 3 method for age determination of the particip lts in Under- 16 Tournaments cannol be held to be based on either irrational or extraneous criterion. The decision of BCCI, according to us, stards to the test of reasonableness anrl under no circumstances can be held tr.l be against public interest. The larv is well-settled that such a decision does not warrant intcrference under Article 226 rnerely because it is-possible lo take a different vierv. 10. We are also of thc view that BCCI cannot be expected to have the method of verification of gcnuineness of documents which are giverL a s proof of age by the players from all over the country. Evidently, the bor.re age test adopted by LICCI is to avoid discrimination between the players an,f to ensure a level playing held in age group tournaments. It may be added that even the petitioners did not raise a:ry objection to the procedure / method of age determination being adopted by BCCI and had voluntarily subjected themselves to the age determination test by TW3 method corrducted by BCCI. Mercly because the age determined by TW3 method did not tally with the birth certihcates and other documents produced by the petitioners, they cannot now turn around and seek a mandamus directing BCCI to rely upon the birth. 1 1- Having regard to the admitted fact that BCCI has treen adopting the scientific method of bone age test for age determination c,f players.for all Under-16 tournaments for the past several years and thal the petitioners were very well awalc of the said fact and particularl.,, in view of the undisputed fact that all the players participated in the Under , 16 tournaments in thr: ;car 2Ol2 - 2013 were subjected to rlEle determination test by TW3 method, the impugned action of BCCI cannc t be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the interfererx:e by this Court undcr Article 226 is not warranted and no mardamus can be issued compelling BCCI to adopt a different method for age determLnation of the writ petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the order u appeal is set aside aIld the writ F,etitions shall 14. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. No order as Lo costs. 15. In the pleadings Iiled on behalf of Respondent No. 2, there is total silence about TW3 report being in the custody of Respondent No. 2. Thereby, it can be safely concllrded that age of Petitioner shall be in accordance with TWit examination report unconnecled with the disputed birth certificates and the said certificates arc of no significance for the simpl: reason that eve n if the saici cerlificates are considered, Petitioner is below 16 years of age. Thereby, it can be safely concluded t_trat petitioner l9 is eligible for being registered in U 16 tournaments to be conducted by BCCI and HCA. Furttrer, for unexplained reasons and circumstances for not placing TW3 report of Petitioner on record in the present writ petition by Respondent No.2 adverse inference has to be drawn against Respondent No.2 and its representatived and office bearers more specihcally Respondent No.4, who is the administrative head of Respondent No.2 vide Rules 23 and 24 of the Rules and Regulations of the Respondent No.2. The Court is of the firm conclusion that whole exercise which Ied to frling of the present Writ Petition is at the instance of Respondent No.4 which act of Respondent No.4 is not bona fide ar:d is by design. 16. The acts of Respondents 2 and 4 and the way the demands were made by Respondent No. 2 for sharing OTP late in the evening from the parents of players is pricking the minds of this Court. In the instalt case on hand, neither the Rules and Regulations of Respondent No.2 nor the guidelines of BCCI speci$r that Aadhar card and its history is the genesis for verilication of birth certihcates. Respondent No. 2, at one breath states that the purpose of Aadhar card registration is only for the proof of residence and not for verihcation of birth of the player. However, a contra pleading and stand is taken that Aadhar history of player is a proof of verihcation of birth of a 20 player which is contra to the requirements of BCCI guidelines. Guideline No.2O of BCCI is very categorical and is specifying that the role of Aadhar card and Aadhgr history is only for ascertainment of proof of residence and not the verihcation oT trirth certificate / details of birth of a player. Furthermore, in the guidelines of BCCI, it is categorical that BCCI,s rr:quirement is the Birth Certilicate that is generated through computer (Computer generated Birth Certificate) and not the birth certihcate/ derails as mentioned in Aadhar History. Thus, the act of Respondent No. 2 and the exercise taken by it on a random complaint that was given by an anony.nlous person, without verifying the genuinet5r of the source of information of the complaint, had straightaway attacked the ,:r-rtitlement of Petitioner for registration and in participating in the tournaments of Respondent No.2 and that of BCOI is nothing short of high handedness of Respondent No.2 and its officials in particular Respondent No.4.

17. Respondent No. 2, on receipt of irrformation or directions from BCCI to investigate into.the matter ,:f petitioner, should have issued a show cause notice calling upon him to explain his stand ald should have followed thr: procedure stipulated under the rules and regulation, more sp,:cihcaily Rule 41 - Grievance Mechanism. The said clause mandates that in 7t the event of taking any action against any player, Respondent No. 2 shall comply with the requireme nts of the procedure envisaged in the said Rule and in specific Rule 41(c). On the face of ttre record, the procedure stipulated in the Rule 41 is not followed in the instant case. That apart under Rule 4l it is the Apex Council of the Respondent No.2 which is empowered pass necessary orders and not certainly by the Respondent No. 2 to

4. Thus, the Petitioner is robbed off the right of hearing by submitting his explanation on being show caused. At this juncture, it is need take into consideration of the conduct of the Respondent No. 2 to 4 in overreaching the Interim Orders of this court dated 06.I1.2024 in not allowing the Petitioner in participate in the tournaments pending disposal of the present writ petition and this also speaks volumes about the respect and integrity of the Respondent No. 2 towards the judicial process and system.

18. Looking from any perspective, the conduct of Respondent No. 2 in refusing to register/withholding registration of petitioner with BCCI, is not in accordance with rules and regulations and is in complete violation of Principles of natural justice and preventing him from participating in the tournaments (ongoing) being conducted by Respondent No.2 and BCCI. I I 22

19. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed' . Respondent No.2 is directed to register Petitioner '"rrith BCCI and also with Respondent No.2 as is the case and shall al1ow him to participate in all the tournaments of Responde nt No.2 and' BCCI, basing on TW3 report without relying upon the Aadhaar Card history. and other documents. No costs. 20 Consequently, miscellaneous Applical:ions, if any shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD-K.SREERAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGI9fRAR /u SECTION OFFICER To

3. 4 5 6 B PSK The Principal Secretary, Sports Department, TS Secretarat Building, Hvderabail. Telanqana, State of Telangana ifr" S"ii"tbw. t-ty"oerabad Cricket Ass6ciation, RGICS, Llppal, Hyderabad' Telangana. in" s-uir"tr.v, The Hyderabad Cricket Association RGICS, Uppal, Hvderabad, Telangana ifr" Cf,Lt e*"iutiie Officer, The Hyderabad Cricket Ass.ciation RGICS, Uooal. Hvderabad, Telanqana oh'., CC io SRI G ADITYA GOUD, Advocate [OPUCI i*o CCsio GP FOR SPORTS, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI Oile CC to SRI N.GANGADHAR, SC FOR HCA [OPUC] Two CD Copies o HIGH COURT DATE D :0 310412025 t- ORDER WP.No.30993 of 2024 .tHE S I,1 3, 1t APR zffi ( .}: c, .A I o ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t\ .,u,- W