Explained: The age fraud case against badminton star Lakshya Sen

The Karnataka High Court on Monday allowed an investigation into allegations that star badminton player Lakshya Sen’s birth certificates were fabricated.

The case originates from a private complaint filed by MG Nagaraj, who alleged that Lakshya Sen’s parents Dhirendra and Nirmala Sen, along with his brother Chirag Sen, coach U Vimal Kumar, and an employee of the Karnataka Badminton Association, were involved in falsifying birth records of the 23-year-old Olympian.

Lakshya Sen, his family members, and his coach U Vimal Kumar had filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court to stall the investigation.

Nagaraj had earlier supported his claims with documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and requested a metropolitan court to summon original records from the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports in New Delhi. Based on this evidence, a metropolitan magistrate in 2022 directed the High Grounds police station to conduct an investigation and rejected Sen’s petition.

What are accusations against Sen, his family and coach?

According to the complaint, the accused allegedly manipulated the birth certificates of Lakshya and Chirag Sen, reducing their age by approximately two and a half years. The alleged forgery was intended to allow them to participate in age-restricted badminton tournaments and avail government benefits.

Following the metropolitan court’s directive, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) under IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery), and 471 (using forged documents as genuine). However, the petitioners moved the Karnataka High Court in 2022, securing an interim order that stalled the investigation.

The petitioners argued that the complaint and subsequent FIR were baseless, motivated, and intended to harass them. They alleged that Nagaraj was acting out of personal vendetta, claiming that his daughter had applied to join the Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy in 2020 but was not selected after the evaluation process. Vimal Kumar, a coach at the academy, was named in the complaint.

Justice MG Uma, while dismissing the petitions, on Monday observed that the petitioners’ counsel did not present arguments despite being given sufficient opportunities. The judge also refused a request for more time.

“When prima facie materials are placed on record that constitute the offenses, I do not find any reason to stall the investigation or quash the criminal proceedings,” Justice Uma stated.

The court noted that the complainant had provided sufficient documentary evidence obtained through RTI, reinforcing the need for an investigation.

With agency inputs