New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed coercive steps in the age fabrication case against Indian badminton player Lakshya Sen, while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Karnataka High Court’s refusal to quash the criminal investigation into the allegations.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran granted interim relief to Sen and his family members, who have been accused of falsifying birth records to compete in underage tournaments. The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 16.
The allegations stem from a private complaint filed by MG Nagaraja, claiming that Lakshya Sen and his brother Chirag Sen, in collusion with their coach—an employee of the Karnataka Badminton Association—altered their birth certificates to show their ages as lower by approximately two-and-a-half years. The purported motive was to gain eligibility for age-restricted competitions and avail associated government benefits.
The complaint was reportedly based on documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. A departmental inquiry had previously found Lakshya’s father, a coach at Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy, guilty of misconduct. The findings were upheld by the Disciplinary Authority.
Following a request by the complainant, the trial court directed the police to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for cheating), 471 (using forged documents as genuine), read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
On February 19, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the Sen family’s plea to quash the proceedings. Justice M.G. Uma observed that prima facie material was available to proceed with the case and declined to interfere in the ongoing investigation.
Senior Advocate Aryaman Sundaram, representing the petitioners, contended before the apex court that the allegations were baseless and that the inquiry process had been marred by procedural irregularities. The court, after considering submissions, stayed coercive actions until the next hearing.
