Delhi High Court slams CBI for slow probe in wrestler Narsingh Yadav’s dope case, says ‘get instructions from officer or we will pass order’

0

The Delhi High Court on Monday slammed the CBI for its slow probe into the allegations of doping against wrestler Narsingh Yadav for taking dope ahead of the 2016 Rio Olympics. Coming down heavily on the federal probe agency, the High Court threatened to pass the order if the CBI counsel did not get necessary instructions from relevant people in the agency.

Narsingh Yadav

“It has been more than two years. What are doing? Get instructions from the concerned officer otherwise we will pass the order,” the High Court, according to news agency ANI, told the CBI lawyer.

Yadav’s case and the High Court’s observation assume significance because it was the Prime Minister’s Office that had referred the matter for a CBI probe in 2016. “Prime Minister’s Office has referred Narsingh’s case to CBI for further investigation and proceedings are learnt to have started into the wrestler’s doping scandal,” Wrestling Federation of India President Brij Bhushan had said two years ago.

Yadav was imposed a four-year ban in 2016 by the Court of Arbitration (CAS), which barred him from taking part at Olympic Games and also threatened to jeopardise his entire career.

The wrestler had tested positive for banned substance about 20 days ahead of the start of the Olympic Games and the wrestler had alleged conspiracy against him, saying that either his food or drinks were spiked.

But with Yadav failing to produce any “real evidence” regarding the sabotage theory, the wrestler from Maharashtra was debarred from representing India at the Rio Games in 74kg freestyle wrestling event.

Despite grabbing the Olympic quota by virtue of his World Championships bronze in Las Vegas in 2015, Yadav’s road to Rio was fraught with obstacles after he was named to represent India ahead of double Olympic-medallist Sushil Kumar.

Kumar had dragged Yadav to the Delhi High Court and a bitter courtroom tussle followed, but the judgment went in latter’s favour.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here