The High Court of Delhi on Tuesday set aside an order of a National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) turning down Shot Putter Kiran Baliyan’s request to produce and examine witnesses. The Court has directed the Panel to adjudicate the case only after recording evidence of witnesses produced by the athlete.
“Considering the submissions of learned counsel, the practice of similarly situated athletes being afforded opportunity of producing the witnesses and in the interest of compliance with the principles of natural justice, it is incumbent on the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel to permit the petitioner to produce the witnesses,” Justice Sachin Datta wrote in his order.
Hangzhou 2022 Asian Games bronze medalist Kiran Baliyan’s sample tested positive for banned substance Metandienone. She has also been charged with an attempt to tamper with the sample.
NADA imposed a provisional suspension on Kiran Baliyan in September last year after Metandienone showed up in her sample. NADA data shows that her samples were collected in out of competition tests on July 10 and 14 respectively in the Netaji Subhas National Institute of Sports, Patiala.
Her contention is that she inadvertently touched the container while washing her hands and brought that to the attention of the Dope Control Officer. She then provided a fresh sample without delay. During the hearing before the ADDP, she sought to summon witnesses, including the Dope Control Officer but the Panel had decided the request was not maintainable.
Kiran Baliyan’s counsel Parth Goswami argued that the National Anti-Doping Agency Rules, 2021 and the World Anti-Doping Agency’s International Standard for Results Management allow the right for an athlete charged with a doping rule violation to access and present relevant evidence and to call and examine witnesses.
With Parth Goswami pleaded that it is normal practice for ADDPs to give athletes the opportunity to produce witnesses and that it was incumbent on ADDP to permit Kiran Baliyan to produce witnesses, Manmeet Kaur Bhasin who appeared as counsel for ADDP and NADA was unable to controvert the existence of such practice.
