India heads into the Aichi-Nagoya Asian Para Games, scheduled for 18–24 October, with its preparations marked by disputes over the selection of athletes and coaching staff. The Sports Ministry has approved a delegation of 166 athletes, according to a PTI report published on 13 October, but has left shooting coach Jai Prakash Nautiyal out of the contingent. The team’s approval follows public protests, legal challenges and appeals from selected athletes to reinstate their coach.
The shooting dispute involves two different positions. According to The Times of India, nine of the thirteen selected shooters met Sports Authority of India (SAI) officials on 12 October to request Nautiyal’s inclusion. Manish Narwal and Mona Agarwal were among those who expressed concern. Their appeal focused on the sporting consequences of attending the competition without the coach who had helped them prepare.
A coach facing criticism and support from different athletes
Days earlier, other shooters had protested during the contingent’s send-off ceremony organised by the Paralympic Committee of India (PCI). According to The Indian Express, athletes Akash and Sandeep alleged favouritism in selection, with Sandeep accusing Nautiyal of requesting a commission on his prize money. The coach denied the allegations and maintained that the team had been chosen under the established policy and on the results of two selection trials. The allegations are not established facts, and his exclusion from the delegation does not demonstrate that they have been substantiated.
The decision reported by PTI places Jeevan L. Rai in the contingent instead of Nautiyal, despite the nine shooters’ appeal. The disagreement therefore affects both those left out and those whose participation is assured. For the latter group, concerns include continuity of coaching support: The Times of India reported the case of Bhakti Sharma, a deaf shooter who relies on specialised communication and expressed her anxiety during the meeting with SAI.
Cyclists take their exclusion to court
In cycling, five athletes challenged before the Delhi High Court the government approval that left Arshad Shaik as the discipline’s sole representative. The petitioners argued that they met the requirements, had been recommended by the selection committee and could fill available quota places; they also sought permission to compete at their own expense. According to the judgment summary published by the legal platform LawLens, the court dismissed their petition on 13 October, meaning the proceedings should no longer be described as awaiting a hearing.
According to the same source, the court accepted that the petitioners’ performances did not meet the applicable criteria and held that vacant quota places did not, by themselves, confer a right to participate. It also rejected the privately funded alternative, citing ministerial rules restricting the contingent to athletes cleared at government expense. The ruling leaves their exclusions in place, although this account of the outcome is based on LawLens’s reporting; the full judgment could not be independently verified.
Finalising the delegation allows preparations to move forward, but leaves an issue extending beyond the selected names: the time available to learn about, understand and challenge a decision. Days before competition, some athletes have had to argue for their inclusion while others have sought their coach’s presence. Applying sporting criteria and allowing athletes to appeal requires enough time to resolve disagreements before they consume the final days of preparation.
Last related articles
