New Delhi, Aug 20 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Thursday heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking recognition of the Right to Sports as a Fundamental Right under Article 21A of the Constitution, with petitioner Dr Kanishka Pandey urging the court not to dilute the larger constitutional question concerning access to sport into the narrower concept of ‘physical literacy'.
During the hearing, the court observed: “This is a laudable request. This is absolutely essential. And now in this digital age, children are totally getting away from fields.”
The PIL, originally filed by Pandey, seeks constitutional recognition of sport on the premise that participation in sport is integral to the holistic development of children and citizens and should not remain dependent merely upon individual privilege, institutional discretion or competitive excellence.
After the PIL was filed, the Supreme Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist the court. A report was later submitted before the court in 2022. The petitioner, however, raised objections to some key aspects of the report, especially its focus on “physical literacy” instead of the broader concept of ‘sports’.
The petitioner submitted that sports, physical education and physical literacy are three different concepts and should not be treated as the same. He argued that replacing the Right to Sports with physical literacy would change the original purpose and scope of the PIL.
The petitioner also said that sports should not be viewed mainly through elite performance, medals, competition, and sporting success.
According to the petition, sport has a wider social and developmental character and can contribute to physical and mental well-being, personality development, discipline, leadership, confidence, resilience, teamwork and character building.
It can also play an important role in addressing stress, anxiety, negativity and social isolation, while creating stronger communities and encouraging social interaction, inclusion and cohesion.
Sport can therefore operate simultaneously as an instrument of education, public health, youth development, community building, social development and nation building, the petitioner submitted.
Pandey told the court that before arriving at recommendations on a matter of such far-reaching constitutional significance, it was important to first understand sport in its entirety and examine its multiple dimensions.
“The purpose of this PIL has never been limited to producing champions or winning medals. Sport is much larger than competitive excellence. It shapes individuals, strengthens communities and contributes to physical, mental and social development. Physical literacy, physical education and sport may complement each other, but they cannot substitute one another. Our humble submission before the Hon’ble Court is that before determining the constitutional place of sport, we must first understand sport in its complete social, educational and developmental context,” Pandey said.
He further said that with children increasingly moving away from playgrounds towards screens, recognising access to sport had assumed greater importance.
“At a time when children are increasingly moving away from playgrounds and towards screens, recognising access to sport assumes even greater importance. The Right to Sports is ultimately about ensuring that the opportunity to play does not become a privilege available only to a few,” he said.
The PIL seeks to initiate a larger national conversation on placing sport alongside education as an essential element in the development of children and young citizens. The matter remains under consideration before the Supreme Court.
--IANS
sds/bsk/
