Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v. Union Territory of J&k and Ors.
[2026] 9 S.C.R. 612 : 2026 INSC 981
Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association
v.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 12801 of 2026)
10 September 2026
[Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Government Order No.25-JK(YSS) of 2026
dated 19.06.2026, insofar as it operates to deny respondent
no.3 permission/NOC and relieving for the national sporting
assignments forming the subject matter of WP(C) No.987 of 2026
is liable to be set aside.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.14 – The appellant-Association
selected respondent no.3 for the coaching assignment
concerning the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team
in connection with the preparatory programme for the Asian
Games, 2026 – The appellant addressed a communication to
the competent authorities of the Union Territory requesting
that the services of respondent no.3 be made available –
No response – Writ petition by the appellant before the
High Court – The Single Judge of the High Court directed
respondent nos.1 and 2 to accord provisional permission
to respondent no.3 – Permission was not granted – The
Government Order No.25-JK(YSS) of 2026 dated 19.06.2026
stated that respondent no.3 was under inquiry and treated this
circumstance as disentitling her to permission – Thereafter,
contempt proceedings were initiated – The Single Judge of
the High Court directed for production of further material and
the personal appearance of the concerned Commissioner/
Secretary – In the meanwhile, the Union Territory had
instituted LPA – The Division Bench of the High Court held
that no enforceable legal right had been established and
it upheld the action of the competent authority in view of
the applicable Conduct Rules, Government instructions,
pending departmental proceedings and absence of requisite
clearances – Correctness:
[2026] 9 S.C.R. 613
Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
Held: Art.14 of the Indian Constitution operates upon the
exercise of administrative discretion as much as it does upon a
statutory decision – Where an authority is vested with discretion,
it must consider the matter on relevant considerations, exclude
extraneous considerations, apply its mind to the purpose for which
the request has been made and act within a reasonable time –
The appellant was not seeking the services of respondent no.3 for
an indefinite private engagement – The request emanated from a
recognised National Sports Federation and concerned preparation
of an Indian National Team for an identified international sporting
event – The request was therefore required to be considered in
that factual setting – In a time-sensitive matter, delay may itself
defeat the very purpose for which administrative power is required
to be exercised – An order of a constitutional court, for so long
as it remains operative, binds the parties to the proceeding – If
the official respondents considered compliance impossible or
contrary to the governing service rules, the course available to
them was to seek clarification, modification or stay of the judicial
direction before the competent court – This Court is unable to
approve the approach whereby the existence of a pending inquiry
was treated as an automatic and conclusive disqualification –
A relevant circumstance may legitimately influence the decision,
however, it cannot be converted into an inflexible rule unless the
governing statutory provision so mandates – The present appeal
succeeds on the broader and independent grounds relating to
failure of timely consideration, non-application of mind to the
nature of the national assignment – By the impugned judgment
dated 11.08.2026 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
is set aside insofar as it dismisses the writ petition and denies
relief to the appellant in respect of the current national sporting
assignment of respondent no.3 – The Government Order No.25-
JK(YSS) of 2026 dated 19.06.2026, insofar as it operates to deny
respondent no.3 permission/NOC and relieving for the national
sporting assignments forming the subject matter of WP(C) No.987
of 2026 is also set aside – Respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed
to issue the necessary relieving order/No Objection Certificate/
permission in favour of respondent no.3. [Paras 22-24, 29, 31, 35]
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
614 [2026] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association; No Objection
Certificate; Foreign Travel permission; Government employee;
Departmental inquiry; Administrative decision; Delay in
administrative decisions; Time-sensitive matters; Sports
administration.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12801
of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2026 of the High
Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in WP (C)
No. 987 of 2026
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Najmi Waziri, Sr. Adv., Arvind Gupta, Ashwini Kumar, Arbaaz
Khan, Sohail Khan, Kanav Bhardwaj, Priyanshu Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Parth Awasthi, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Khowaja Siddiqui,
Sandeep Gupta, Mrs. Kanchan Gupta.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the common judgment and order dated
11.08.2026 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and
Ladakh at Srinagar in WP(C) No.987 of 2026, heard along with
LPA No.173 of 2026 and CCP(S) No.215 of 2026. By the impugned
judgment, the Division Bench dismissed WP(C) No.987 of 2026,
vacated the interim order dated 06.05.2026, consequently disposed
of LPA No.173 of 2026 as infructuous and closed the contempt
proceedings. (For short “Impugned Order”)
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The relevant facts shorn of unnecessary details necessary for
determination of present appeal is that the appellant, Indian
[2026] 9 S.C.R. 615
Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
Kayaking and Canoeing Association, is a recognised National
Sports Federation concerned with the discipline of Kayaking and
Canoeing. Its annual recognition for the year 2026 was renewed by
the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports up to 31.12.2026, subject
to the outcome of the relevant court proceedings.
4. Respondent No.3 – Ms. Bilquis Mir, is a government employee
serving as a Physical Education Teacher in the Department of Youth
Services and Sports, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The
appellant selected her for the coaching assignment concerning the
Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team in connection with
the preparatory programme for the Asian Games, 2026. The period
indicated by the appellant for the coaching programme was from
15.02.2026 to 30.09.2026. The record also indicates that respondent
No.3 was appointed as an International Technical Official for the
Canoe Sprint discipline for the Asian Games Nagoya 2026. She was
separately selected to officiate as the Chief Finish Line Judge at the
2026 ICF Canoe Sprint World Cup at Szeged, Hungary, scheduled
between 08.05.2026 and 10.05.2026.
5. On 03.02.2026, the appellant addressed a communication to the
competent authorities of the Union Territory requesting that the
services of respondent No.3 be made available for the National
Coaching Camp. The communication specifically referred to the
necessity of an experienced coach for the preparation of the Indian
team for the Asian Games and sought her services for the period
from 15.02.2026 to 30.09.2026. As no decision was forthcoming,
reminders were addressed on 01.03.2026 and 02.04.2026. The latter
communication specifically adverted to the urgency of the National
Coaching Camp, the effect of the continued non-availability of the
coach upon the preparation of the Indian team and sought issuance
of the necessary permission/No Objection Certificate.
6. With the request remaining undecided, the appellant instituted
WP(C) No.987 of 2026 before the High Court on 30.04.2026. The
substantive relief sought was a writ of mandamus directing the
official respondents to grant the requisite permission, relieving order
and No Objection Certificate to respondent No.3 to discharge her
duties as Chief Coach of the Indian National Team and to participate
in the Asian Games 2026 preparatory programme and connected
international assignments.
616 [2026] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7. On 05.05.2026, WP(C) No.987 of 2026 was directed to be listed with
WP(C) No.790 of 2026, which had been instituted by respondent
No.3. On the following day, respondent No.3 withdrew her own writ
petition with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The writ petition instituted by the appellant-Association, however,
continued independently. On 06.05.2026, after considering the
material placed by the appellant, the learned Single Judge found
a prima facie case for interim protection. Respondent Nos.1 and 2
were consequently directed to accord provisional permission to
respondent No.3 to discharge her duties as Chief Coach/Coach
of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team for the Asian
Games 2026 and to travel to Hungary for officiating at the ICF Canoe
Sprint World Cup. The permission was expressly made subject to the
final outcome of the writ petition and at her own risk and cost. The
direction, however, did not result in respondent No.3 being enabled
to participate in the Hungary assignment. In her representation
dated 14.05.2026, respondent No.3 recorded that the World Cup
had already concluded and that the opportunity to officiate therein
had been lost. She thereafter sought immediate compliance insofar
as the continuing National Coaching assignment was concerned.
8. Eventually, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir issued
Government Order No.25-JK(YSS) of 2026 dated 19.06.2026.
The order referred to the appointment of respondent No.3 as a
Physical Education Teacher, her applications concerning travel
to Hungary between 08.05.2026 and 10.05.2026 and to Japan
between 19.09.2026 and 04.10.2026, the applicable instructions
relating to foreign travel, and certain issues concerning her service
record and pending proceedings. Significantly, the Government
Order itself extracted the applicable instructions to the effect that
applications for permission to travel abroad were required to be
dealt with expeditiously and that permission ought not to be denied
or delayed in genuine and justified cases. Nevertheless, the Order
proceeded to refer to earlier foreign visits, a pending departmental
inquiry, questions concerning compliance with the B.P.Ed. condition
and an Anti-Corruption Bureau reference.
9. The ultimate operative portion of the Government Order stated that
respondent No.3 was under inquiry and treated this circumstance
as disentitling her to permission. It further referred to her previous
foreign travel and rejected her claim for NOC/permission for travel
[2026] 9 S.C.R. 617
Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
to Hungary and Japan on the ground, inter alia, that requisite
documents had not been furnished through the prescribed mode
and, consequently, vigilance clearance could not be processed.
10. Contempt proceedings thereafter came to be initiated. On 13.07.2026,
the learned Single Judge recorded concern with respect to the
non-compliance with the order dated 06.05.2026 and called upon
the official respondents to furnish an updated status regarding the
relieving of respondent No.3 for the assignment sought by the
appellant.
11. By an order dated 28.07.2026, the learned Single Judge noted that
the World Cup event had already passed and expressed concern
that the Government Order dated 19.06.2026 had dealt with the
controversy substantially as an ordinary service matter without
addressing the national sporting assignment for which the appellant
had sought the services of respondent No.3. The Court required
production of further material and the personal appearance of the
concerned Commissioner/Secretary.
12. On 03.08.2026, the learned Single Judge directed production of the
Government file. The order recorded that the National Coaching
Camp had commenced at Bhopal and also adverted to the
forthcoming participation of the Indian National Team in the Asian
Games commencing on 19.09.2026. It was expressly observed
that time was of the essence in the adjudication of the writ petition.
In the meanwhile, the Union Territory had instituted LPA No.173 of
2026 against the interim order dated 06.05.2026. When the appeal
was taken up, the parties agreed that WP(C) No.987 of 2026 itself
could be finally adjudicated. The matter was accordingly heard by
the Division Bench and reserved for judgment on 04.08.2026.
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
13. By the impugned judgment dated 11.08.2026, the Division Bench held,
in substance, that respondent No.3 continued to be a government
employee and that merely because she had been selected by
the appellant-Association for a national sporting assignment, no
enforceable right arose to compel the employer to issue an NOC,
relieving order or foreign travel permission. As such, the High Court
characterised the arrangement as one of deputation and held that
the lending Government retained administrative discretion whether
or not to spare the services of its employee.
618 [2026] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
14. The Division Bench also made observations concerning the conduct
of respondent No.3, her alleged previous foreign travel and the
qualification prescribed for her appointment as a Physical Education
Teacher. It thereafter held that no enforceable legal right had been
established and upheld the action of the competent authority in view
of the applicable Conduct Rules, Government instructions, pending
departmental proceedings and absence of requisite clearances.
15. At the same time, the High Court expressly found substance in the
appellant’s grievance that its request had remained unattended for
a considerable period. It held that administrative authorities must
act with reasonable promptitude in matters concerning national and
international sporting events and observed that delay could prejudice
not only the concerned employee but also the larger national
interest. It nevertheless concluded that, once the Government had
subsequently passed the order dated 19.06.2026, the grievance
regarding delay “pales into insignificance”.
16. Lastly, the High Court directed the Government of India, Ministry
concerned with Youth Affairs and Sports, to formulate a statutory or
otherwise enforceable framework governing the placement of the
services of Government employees who are outstanding sportspersons
at the disposal of recognised National Sports Federations.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
17. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Najmi Waziri appearing for the appellant
has principally urged that the High Court misdirected itself in
proceeding on the premise that the appellant asserted an absolute
right to obtain the services of respondent No.3. The grievance,
it is submitted, was fundamentally against prolonged executive
inaction in a time-sensitive matter and against the failure to take
into account the public interest involved in the preparation of the
Indian National Team.
18. It is further submitted that the administrative decision dated
19.06.2026 could not retrospectively cure the failure to act upon
repeated communications beginning from 03.02.2026, particularly
when the international assignment in Hungary had, by then,
already concluded. The appellant also questions the legality of
an executive order inconsistent with an operative judicial direction
dated 06.05.2026.
[2026] 9 S.C.R. 619
Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
19. Learned counsel Mr. Parth Awasthi appearing for the official
respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned
judgment. It has been urged that respondent No.3 is a Government
employee governed by the applicable service and conduct rules
and that permission for foreign travel is not a vested right. It was
further submitted that that departmental proceedings were pending
and that requisite documents necessary for vigilance clearance had
not been furnished.
CONSIDERATION
20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties extensively and upon
consideration of the material on record, we are of the considered view
that the present matter required indulgence to the Impugned Order.
21. At the outset, we agree with the High Court to the limited extent
that neither a Government employee nor a borrowing organisation
can claim an absolute or indefeasible right to deputation or foreign
travel and the employer is entitled to take into account service
exigencies, applicable rules, disciplinary proceedings and other
relevant considerations.
22. The matter, however, does not end there. 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, which in our considered
opinion are two distinct propositions. It is settled position of law
that administrative discretion is not placed beyond judicial review
merely because the ultimate relief sought lies within the discretion
of the executive. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution operates upon
the exercise of administrative discretion as much as it does upon
a statutory decision. Where an authority is vested with discretion,
it must consider the matter on relevant considerations, exclude
extraneous considerations, apply its mind to the purpose for which
the request has been made and act within a reasonable time.
23. This distinction assumes particular significance in the present case.
The appellant was not seeking the services of respondent No.3 for
an indefinite private engagement. The request emanated from a
recognised National Sports Federation and concerned preparation
of an Indian National Team for an identified international sporting
event. The request was therefore required to be considered in that
620 [2026] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
factual setting. At this juncture, it is apt and appropriate to refer the
relevant dates which hold significance. The first request was made
on 03.02.2026. It was followed by reminders on 01.03.2026 and
02.04.2026. Yet no decision was taken before the appellant was
compelled to invoke the writ jurisdiction on 30.04.2026. Indeed, the
High Court itself ultimately found that the delay was substantial and
that such delay was capable of prejudicing the larger national interest.
24. The error in the impugned judgment lies in holding that the
subsequent administrative order dated 19.06.2026 rendered the
earlier delay inconsequential. In a time-sensitive matter, delay
may itself defeat the very purpose for which administrative power
is required to be exercised. A decision rendered after the relevant
opportunity has substantially or wholly passed cannot invariably
cure an earlier failure to act and the present case illustrates the
point. Respondent No.3 was selected to officiate at the World Cup
scheduled between 08.05.2026 and 10.05.2026. The Government
Order rejecting permission came only on 19.06.2026, more than
a month after that event had concluded. The failure to decide the
request in time had, therefore, already produced an irreversible
consequence.
25. There is yet another aspect of considerable importance. On
06.05.2026, the High Court had specifically directed respondent
Nos.1 and 2 to accord provisional permission to respondent No.3.
The order protected the interests of the employer by making the
arrangement subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and at
the risk and cost of respondent No.3. An order of a constitutional
court, for so long as it remains operative, binds the parties to the
proceeding. If the official respondents considered compliance
impossible or contrary to the governing service rules, the course
available to them was to seek clarification, modification or stay of the
judicial direction before 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.
26. We may clarify that this does not mean that the High Court, at
the stage of final adjudication, was precluded from examining the
legality of the Government Order dated 19.06.2026. The said order
had been produced before the Court and was in fact examined
[2026] 9 S.C.R. 621
Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
and upheld by the Division Bench. What was impermissible was
to treat its subsequent issuance as retrospectively answering the
failure to comply with an operative judicial order or as obliterating
the consequences of the earlier delay.
27. The Government Order dated 19.06.2026 suffers from another
infirmity. The request before the authorities had two related but distinct
facets: first, relieving respondent No.3 for the continuing coaching
assignment with the Indian National Team and secondly, permission
in relation to identified international sporting engagements. The
Government Order principally proceeds as one concerning foreign
travel, namely Hungary and Japan. It does not independently address
the appellant’s continuing request that respondent No.3 be made
available for the National Coaching Programme.
28. Indeed, the Government Order itself reproduces the applicable
instruction requiring requests of employees to be dealt with
expeditiously and stating that permission should not be denied or
delayed in genuine and justified cases. The authority was therefore
required to consider not only the existence of a pending inquiry but
also the nature of the assignment, its limited duration, its national
character, the possibility of imposing appropriate safeguards, and
the consequence which delay would have upon the event itself.
29. We are equally unable to approve the approach whereby the
existence of a pending inquiry was treated as an automatic and
conclusive disqualification. The relevant instruction, as reproduced
in the Government Order, confers discretion upon the authority.
A relevant circumstance may legitimately influence the decision,
however, it cannot be converted into an inflexible rule unless the
governing statutory provision so mandates. But we may clarify,
nothing stated by us should be understood as preventing the
employer from proceeding against respondent No.3 in accordance
with law in respect of any alleged misconduct, unauthorized
absence, foreign travel or breach of the applicable service rules.
Such proceedings have to be adjudicated independently upon their
own merits. The present controversy is confined to the legality of
the manner in which the request concerning the national sporting
assignment was dealt with.
30. We also find merit in the grievance concerning certain observations
made by the Division Bench on the validity of the original appointment
622 [2026] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of respondent No.3, her educational qualification and her general
service conduct. The validity of her appointment as Physical Education
Teacher was not the lis which arose for adjudication in WP(C) No.987
of 2026. Nor was the High Court exercising disciplinary jurisdiction
over respondent No.3. A constitutional court may undoubtedly take
note of relevant antecedents where they bear upon the legality of
the administrative decision challenged before it. However, findings
which may operate prejudicially in independent service or disciplinary
proceedings ought not to be returned on matters which are not directly
in issue, particularly in the absence of a full adjudication upon those
questions. Consequently, the observations in the impugned judgment
relating to the validity of the original appointment of respondent
No.3, her acquisition or non-acquisition of the B.P.Ed. qualification
and observations characterising her service conduct shall not be
treated as findings against respondent No.3 and shall not prejudice
any independent proceeding which may be taken or continued in
accordance with law.
31. We also do not consider it necessary to decide the plea of
discrimination founded upon the relieving of another coach/Ms.
Josna Yohannan. The record indicates that the circumstances of
that appointment were not necessarily identical. The present appeal
succeeds on the broader and independent grounds relating to failure
of timely consideration, non-application of mind to the nature of the
national assignment and the effect of the operative judicial direction
dated 06.05.2026.
32. In our considered view, sports administration necessarily involves
strict timelines. Selection, training camps, qualifying events and
international competitions operate upon fixed schedules which
cannot be postponed to await completion of ordinary administrative
processes. This does not diminish the employer’s authority over its
employees but it merely requires that such authority be exercised
with a degree of promptitude commensurate with the subject matter
before it.
33. In the present case, the Asian Games assignment is imminent. A
remand to the competent authority for a fresh consideration, though
ordinarily appropriate where an administrative decision is found
defective, would in the peculiar circumstances amount to denial of
effective relief, however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the
[2026] 9 S.C.R. 623
Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
dispute has remained pending from February 2026 and that one
international assignment has already been lost during the pendency
of the proceedings.
CONCLUSION
34. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands allowed. Consequently,
the judgment and order dated 11.08.2026 passed by the High Court
of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in WP(C) No.987 of
2026 is set aside insofar as it dismisses the writ petition and denies
relief to the appellant in respect of the current national sporting
assignment of respondent No.3.
35. Government Order No.25-JK(YSS) of 2026 dated 19.06.2026, insofar
as it operates to deny respondent No.3 permission/NOC and relieving
for the national sporting assignments forming the subject matter of
WP(C) No.987 of 2026, shall stand set aside. Respondent Nos.1
and 2 are directed to issue the necessary relieving order/No Objection
Certificate/permission in favour of respondent No.3 – Ms. Bilquis Mir,
forthwith and, in any event, on or before 15.09.2026 to enable her:
a. to join and discharge the remaining assignment as Coach/
Chief Coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing
Team; and
b. to accompany and assist the Indian National Team in
connection with the Asian Games, 2026
36. The aforesaid permission shall remain operative for the period
reasonably necessary for completion of the Asian Games 2026
assignment and connected official travel, subject to respondent No.3
reporting back to her parent Department immediately upon completion
of the said assignment. The period during which respondent No.3
remains away from her ordinary place of posting pursuant to the
present order shall not be treated as unauthorized absence.
37. We deem fit to clarify that the present order shall not be construed as:
a) recognising any general or vested right in a Government
employee to claim deputation, foreign travel or release for an
outside assignment;
b) interfering with the power of the competent authority to institute,
continue or conclude any departmental proceeding against
respondent No.3 in accordance with law;
624 [2026] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
c) expressing any opinion upon the merits of any such disciplinary
proceeding; or
d) granting respondent No.3 permission for any private foreign
travel unconnected with the national sporting assignment
covered by the present proceedings.
38. Since the appeal is being finally disposed of, we do not consider it
necessary to revive either LPA No.173 of 2026 or CCP(S) No.215 of
2026. Their disposal/closure shall accordingly remain undisturbed.
39. We also see no reason to interfere with the direction contained in
paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment insofar as the High Court
has called upon the Government of India to evolve an appropriate
and enforceable framework for dealing with requests concerning
Government employees who are outstanding sportspersons, coaches
or technical officials and whose services are sought by recognised
National Sports Federations. That direction shall remain undisturbed.
40. As such, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.
41. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand consigned to record.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan