The Supreme Court has held that government authorities must decide requests concerning national sporting assignments with promptitude, observing that a delayed administrative decision may itself defeat the purpose for which the authority’s discretion is required to be exercised.
The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to immediately issue the necessary relieving order, No Objection Certificate and permission in favour of kayaking and canoeing coach Bilquis Mir to assist the Indian national team at the Asian Games 2026.
The Court ordered the authorities to grant the permission forthwith and, in any event, on or before September 15, 2026.
The bench set aside the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court’s judgment to the extent that it had dismissed the petition filed by the Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association and denied relief regarding Mir’s current national sporting assignment.
It also set aside a Jammu and Kashmir government order dated June 19, 2026, insofar as it denied Mir permission, an NOC and relieving for the national sporting assignments forming the subject matter of the proceedings.
No Absolute Right, But Request Must Receive Fair and Timely Consideration
The Supreme Court agreed that neither a government employee nor an organisation seeking the employee’s services could claim an absolute or indefeasible right to deputation or foreign travel.
The employer remains entitled to consider service requirements, applicable rules, pending disciplinary proceedings and other relevant circumstances before deciding whether to release an employee.
However, the Court drew a clear distinction between an absolute right to receive a favourable decision and the right to have a request considered fairly, reasonably, without arbitrariness and within a reasonable period.
“The absence of an absolute right to obtain a favourable administrative decision cannot be equated with the absence of a right to fair, reasonable, non-arbitrary and timely consideration of a request,” the Court observed.
It added that administrative discretion does not become immune from judicial review merely because the ultimate relief lies within the executive’s discretion. Article 14 of the Constitution applies to the exercise of administrative discretion in the same manner as it applies to statutory decisions.
Where an authority has discretion, it must examine the relevant considerations, exclude extraneous factors, apply its mind to the purpose of the request and act within a reasonable time, the bench said.
Association Sought Coach’s Services for Asian Games Preparations
The Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association is a recognised National Sports Federation responsible for kayaking and canoeing. Its annual recognition for 2026 was renewed by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports until December 31, 2026, subject to the outcome of pending court proceedings.
Bilquis Mir is employed as a Physical Education Teacher in the Department of Youth Services and Sports of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Association selected her for a coaching assignment with the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team as part of its preparations for the Asian Games 2026. The coaching programme was scheduled from February 15 to September 30, 2026.
Mir was also appointed as an International Technical Official for the Canoe Sprint discipline at the Asian Games in Nagoya. Separately, she was selected to officiate as Chief Finish Line Judge at the 2026 ICF Canoe Sprint World Cup in Szeged, Hungary, held between May 8 and May 10, 2026.
On February 3, 2026, the Association requested the Jammu and Kashmir authorities to make Mir’s services available for the National Coaching Camp. It sent reminders on March 1 and April 2, emphasising the urgency of the camp and the adverse impact that the continued absence of an experienced coach could have on the Indian team’s preparations.
As no decision was taken, the Association approached the High Court on April 30, 2026. It sought directions requiring the authorities to issue the necessary permission, relieving order and NOC so that Mir could work as coach or chief coach of the national team and participate in the connected international assignments.
Interim High Court Direction Was Not Implemented
On May 6, 2026, a Single Judge of the High Court found a prima facie case in favour of interim protection and directed the authorities to provisionally permit Mir to work as coach or chief coach of the Indian team and travel to Hungary for the World Cup.
The permission was made subject to the final result of the writ petition and at Mir’s own risk and cost.
The direction was not implemented in time. In a representation dated May 14, Mir pointed out that the World Cup had already concluded and that she had lost the opportunity to officiate at the event. She subsequently sought immediate compliance regarding the continuing national coaching assignment.
The Jammu and Kashmir government eventually passed an order on June 19, 2026, rejecting the request for permission. It referred to Mir’s previous foreign visits, a pending departmental inquiry, issues concerning her service record and educational qualification, and an Anti-Corruption Bureau reference.
The government also stated that the necessary documents had not been submitted through the prescribed channel and that vigilance clearance could therefore not be processed.
Executive Authority Cannot Neutralise Operative Judicial Order
The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the High Court’s interim order directing provisional permission remained operative when the government issued its rejection order.
It held that an order of a constitutional court binds the parties for as long as it remains in force. If the authorities believed that compliance was impossible or contrary to the applicable service rules, they were required to seek clarification, modification or a stay from the competent court.
“An executive authority cannot, during the subsistence of a judicial direction, render that direction ineffective merely by taking an administrative decision inconsistent with it,” the bench said.
The Court clarified that the High Court was entitled, during final adjudication, to examine the legality of the June 19 government order. What was impermissible was treating the subsequent administrative order as retrospectively answering the failure to comply with the existing judicial direction or erasing the consequences of the earlier delay.
Decision After Opportunity Has Passed Cannot Cure Earlier Inaction
The Supreme Court disagreed with the Division Bench’s finding that the government’s eventual decision made its earlier delay insignificant.
In a time-sensitive matter, delay may destroy the very purpose of the administrative process, the Court said. A decision taken after the relevant opportunity has wholly or substantially passed cannot always cure the authority’s earlier failure to act.
The Association’s first request was submitted on February 3, followed by two reminders. Nevertheless, no decision was taken before the Association was compelled to approach the High Court on April 30.
The World Cup took place between May 8 and May 10, but the government’s rejection order was passed only on June 19, more than a month after the event had concluded. The delay had therefore already caused an irreversible consequence by depriving Mir of the opportunity to officiate at the tournament.
Government Failed to Address Continuing National Coaching Assignment
The Court found another defect in the June 19 government order. The Association’s request had two related but distinct components: releasing Mir for the continuing coaching programme of the Indian national team and permitting her to participate in specified international sporting engagements.
However, the government order primarily treated the controversy as one concerning foreign travel to Hungary and Japan. It did not independently consider the Association’s continuing request that Mir be made available for the National Coaching Programme.
The applicable government instructions, which were reproduced in the rejection order itself, required applications for foreign travel to be dealt with expeditiously and provided that permission should not be denied or delayed in genuine and justified cases.
The competent authority was therefore required to consider the nature and limited duration of the assignment, its national character, the possibility of imposing safeguards and the consequences that delay would have on the sporting event.
Pending Inquiry Cannot Automatically Disqualify Employee
The Supreme Court also disapproved of the authorities treating the mere existence of a pending departmental inquiry as an automatic and conclusive disqualification.
Although a pending inquiry may be a relevant consideration, it cannot be transformed into an inflexible prohibition unless the governing statutory provision expressly mandates such a consequence, the Court said.
The bench nevertheless clarified that its ruling would not prevent the government from initiating, continuing or concluding proceedings against Mir over any alleged misconduct, unauthorised absence, foreign travel or violation of service rules. Any such proceedings must be decided independently on their merits.
High Court’s Observations on Appointment and Qualification Expunged
The Supreme Court further found merit in the objection to certain observations made by the High Court concerning the validity of Mir’s original appointment as a Physical Education Teacher, her B.P.Ed. qualification and her general service conduct.
The validity of her appointment was not the issue before the High Court in the Association’s writ petition. Nor was the High Court exercising disciplinary jurisdiction over her.
The bench held that courts may consider antecedents relevant to the legality of a challenged administrative decision. However, findings capable of prejudicing an employee in separate service or disciplinary proceedings should not be returned on matters that are not directly in issue, especially without full adjudication.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the High Court’s observations regarding Mir’s appointment, qualification and service conduct would not be treated as findings against her or prejudice any independent proceedings.
Sports Administration Requires Strict Timelines
Emphasising the special nature of sporting assignments, the Supreme Court observed that selection processes, training camps, qualifying events and international competitions operate according to fixed schedules.
These events cannot be postponed while ordinary administrative processes remain pending.
The requirement of prompt decision-making does not diminish the government’s authority over its employees. It only requires that such authority be exercised with a degree of urgency proportionate to the subject matter, the Court explained.
Considering that the Asian Games assignment was imminent and that one international opportunity had already been lost during the proceedings, the bench held that sending the matter back to the competent authority for reconsideration would effectively deny meaningful relief.
Permission Limited to Asian Games Assignment
The Court directed the authorities to release Mir so that she could complete the remaining assignment as coach or chief coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team; and accompany and assist the national team in connection with the Asian Games 2026.
The permission will remain operative for the period reasonably required to complete the Asian Games assignment and connected official travel. Mir must report to her parent department immediately after the assignment concludes.
The Court further directed that her absence from her ordinary place of posting during this period must not be treated as unauthorised absence.
It clarified that the ruling does not recognise a general or vested right of government employees to claim deputation, foreign travel or release for outside assignments. It also does not grant Mir permission for any private foreign travel unrelated to the national sporting assignment.
The Supreme Court left undisturbed the High Court’s direction asking the Union government to formulate an appropriate and enforceable framework for handling requests involving government employees who are outstanding sportspersons, coaches or technical officials sought by recognised National Sports Federations.
The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: GST Liability Over Mining Royalty: GSTAT Restrains State Benches From Deciding Appeals
