The case involves an application filed by Rahul Kumar and Saket Wali, former ranked squash players from India, against the Asian Squash Federation (ASF), the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA), and the World Squash Federation (WSF) concerning the draw for the XVII Asian Games in Incheon. The applicants sought a redraw to ensure players from the same country were placed in separate halves, arguing the current setup undermined the distinction between country representation and individual glory. The application was submitted to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division, which is established to resolve disputes arising during the Asian Games.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators Bruce Collins QC, Catherine Anne Davani, and Thi My Dung Nguyen, first addressed the issue of jurisdiction. Under the CAS ad hoc Rules, only athletes and National Olympic Committees (NOCs) have standing to file appeals. Since Kumar and Wali were neither participating athletes nor team officials, the panel questioned their eligibility to bring the case. A preliminary hearing was held on September 19, 2014, focusing solely on jurisdiction. During the hearing, Kumar confirmed his complaint was exclusively against the ASF concerning the squash draw, effectively discontinuing claims against the other respondents.
The panel examined the relevant provisions of the CAS ad hoc Rules and the OCA Constitution, which restrict disputes to those involving athletes and NOCs. As the applicants did not meet these criteria, the panel concluded they lacked standing, rendering the CAS without jurisdiction to hear the case. The operative part of the award was communicated to the parties on September 19, 2014, dismissing the application on jurisdictional grounds. The decision emphasized that the CAS ad hoc Division’s authority is limited to disputes involving eligible parties under the established rules.
The panel also noted that the dispute did not fall within the temporal scope of the ad hoc Division’s jurisdiction, which was limited to disputes arising between September 15 and October 4, 2014. Additionally, the panel reviewed the ASF Championship Regulations and the Asian Games Sports Technical Handbook but found no independent basis for jurisdiction. While acknowledging the applicants' passion for squash, the panel underscored that the liberal approach to public interest litigation in India, referenced by Kumar, was irrelevant to the CAS ad hoc Division’s procedures, which are governed by the CAS Ad Hoc Rules and Swiss Private International Law.
Ultimately, the panel ruled that the applicants had no legal standing to challenge the ASF’s draw procedures, as they were not participants in the Games or representatives of an NOC. The case highlights the strict jurisdictional boundaries of the CAS ad hoc Division and the necessity for claimants to meet specific eligibility criteria to pursue disputes during major sporting events. The decision, formally rendered on September 20, 2014, reinforced that only eligible parties, such as athletes and NOCs, can bring disputes before the panel.