Twelve Awards, Seven Members and a Conflict of Interest
A state government's sports awards committee has seven members, ₹25 lakh in total, and must finalise twelve awards of ₹1 lakh each plus one lifetime achievement award of ₹5 lakh within ten days. Its shortlist of fourteen includes the nephew of one committee member, a wrestler with an adverse analytical finding from an out-of-competition test eight weeks ago, a middle-distance runner with three whereabouts failures in eleven months, and a shooter whose national bronze came in an event with only three entries. The committee's written criteria say only that awards go to sportspersons 'of outstanding merit and impeccable integrity'. Minutes of the meeting have been requested under the Right to Information Act, and a local newspaper has already named the member's nephew.
1. How should the committee handle the member whose nephew is shortlisted?
Read the worked answer
Recusal, recorded on the file, with the quorum tested.
Procedure. The member should declare the relationship in writing at the start of the meeting and withdraw from all discussion, scoring and voting on that nominee. The declaration and the withdrawal must be minuted, because the RTI request will ask for them; a clean minute protects both the award and the member.
Quorum. With seven members, six remaining is ample and a recusal does not stall the committee. Check the rules only if they require a higher fraction.
Substance. Recusal is necessary but not sufficient if the nephew is also the weakest candidate. The committee should score all fourteen against a written rubric first and rank afterwards. A relative who wins on a high score is defensible; a relative who scrapes in at number twelve is not.
Disclosure. The RTI reply should state the relationship, the recusal and the aggregate scores, withholding only personal data the Act protects. Concealing the relationship and then having it exposed in the newspaper is far worse than the relationship itself.
If the member is the only subject expert in that sport, bring in an external expert for that one nomination rather than reinstating him.
2. How should the two doping cases be treated, and are they the same?
Read the worked answer
They are not the same, and treating them alike is itself a procedural error.
Adverse analytical finding. This is a completed fact of a positive test for a prohibited substance. Under the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022 and the NADA rules, the athlete is provisionally suspended unless that is waived, the case goes to the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel, and disqualification of results is a likely outcome. An award made now may have to be withdrawn later, which damages everyone. The correct course is to defer the decision on that nominee until the panel decides.
Three whereabouts failures. Three failures in twelve months constitute an anti-doping rule violation under the WADA Code, but the violation is not established until the result-management process concludes. It is a pending proceeding, not a sanction. The nominee is presumed innocent and remains eligible under most award rules.
Practical rule. The criteria should say what counts - typically 'not currently serving a sanction for an anti-doping rule violation' - and a pending case justifies deferral only if the rules say so.
Both nominees must be heard before any decision, and told what is being considered. An award withheld without notice invites a writ petition and an injunction that will delay the whole list.
3. Design a defensible scoring method the committee can disclose.
Read the worked answer
The rubric and its weights must be fixed before anyone is scored, and must be publishable.
Suggested weights: 55% performance, 20% consistency through the year, 15% competition strength, 10% contribution to the sport and conduct. Within performance, score the level of the event, the placing and the personal best against the national standard. Within competition strength, weight by number of entries and depth of field - this is where the shooter's three-entry bronze is handled: it earns a low competition-strength score, not a disqualification, because the medal is real and the event was sanctioned.
Process controls: fix the rubric and weights in the first meeting and minute them; score independently before discussion, to avoid anchoring on the chair's view; record a one-line reason for every score; set a minimum overall threshold so no award is made by default; and publish the rubric and aggregate scores.
Transparency. Publish the rubric, the scores and any recusal, withholding only personal data. A list that looks arbitrary cannot be defended under RTI; a list with a disclosed method can be, even if someone is disappointed.