Relief for Lakshya Sen in age-fraud controversy; Supreme Court stays Karnataka HC order; All we know so far

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 25) has issued a special notice on Lakshya Sen’s plea in quashing an investigation which alleged the Indian badminton star fabricated birth certificates to participate in underage tournaments. The 23-year-old Indian shuttler has filed a petition to the Karnataka High Court to either stall the investigation to to dismiss the initiation of the criminal proceedings against him. 

On Tuesday, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court, issued a notice and stayed coercive steps against the petitioners. The Lakshya Sen age-fraud case will be now heard on April 16, 2025.

What is the Lakshya Sen case all about?

A case was registered against Indian Olympian badminton star Lakshya Sen, his brother Chirag Sen, father Dhirendra K Sen, mother Nirmala D Sen, and coach U Vimal Kumar, alleging that they fabricated the birth documents of both brothers – Lakshya and Chirag. 

In the case filed, it is being alleged that their ages were lowered by two-and-half years so that they can compete in junior tournaments.

What filed case against Lakshya Sen?

The case was filed by Nagaraja MG, leading to a FIR being registered in December 2022. Who is Nagaraja MG? According to The Bridge, he runs a badminton academy in Bengaluru. Based on Nagaraja’s complaint, a FIR was regisrered under IPC sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged record). 

As per official records in Badminton World Federation (BWF), Lakshya Sen was born in 2001. But Nagaraja claimed that Indian badminton star was born in 1998.

What did Karnataka High Court say?

Justice MG Uma of the Karnataka High Court on February 19, dismissed the writ petition, stating: “When prima facie materials are placed on record which constitute the offences, I do not find any reason either to stall the investigation or to quash the initiation of criminal proceedings. There are sufficient materials that are placed before the Court by the complainant which are the documents that are obtained under the Right to Information Act from the appropriate authority. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petitions.”