Sorry, Girisha: Whichever way you look at it, Sania Mirza has earned the Khel Ratna award

It’s bad enough that seemingly half of India’s sports federations are involved in one court case or another (or multiple, in the case of the BCCI), but now India’s sportspersons are crowding the courtroom over national awards as well.

Para-athlete H N Girisha’s petition challenging Sania Mirza’s right to receive the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna award is the latest example. He follows in the footsteps of boxer Manoj Kumar, who took the Sports Ministry to court over the Arjuna Award. He claimed he was told he would be awarded one and that his name was wrongly removed from the list because the committee mistook him for another boxer.

The court found in Kumar’s favour and he got his Arjuna Award.

But in that case, he wasn’t asking for someone else’s award to be taken away. There are multiple Arjuna Award winners in a given year e.g. 25 sportspersons got the award in 2012. The Khel Ratna, though, is generally given to just one athlete (though there have been exceptions) and is based on performance over the four years prior to the year in which the award is given.

Girisha claims he has 90 points under the points system for the award while Sania isn’t on the points list at all. He also claimed that since the list is based on major international tournaments such as the Olympics, Para-Olympics, World Cups and Asian Games, Sania’s achievements on the WTA tour do not count.

In a discussion on NDTV, the Hindustan Times sports editor Sukhwant Basra, who was part of the committee that decided who would get the award, said Sania deserved it because she was a trailblazer but had they totaled her points too, she would have beaten out Girisha anyway.

Since there wasn’t an agreement on the issue, we decided to go to the source to find out whose case stands up better to scrutiny. It turns out Girisha isn’t quite right about which events are to be counted. Here is the general criteria for the Khel Ratna:

The spectacular and most outstanding performance in the field of sports by a sportsperson over a period of four years immediately preceding the year during which award is to be given shall be honoured with the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award for excellence in Sports & Games at international level i.e. Olympic/Asian/ Commonwealth/World Games/Championships/World Cup and equivalent recognized international tournaments.

Tennis Grand Slams would almost certainly fall under the definition of “equivalent recognised international tournaments”.

However, where Girisha does score a point is that the scheme states: “80% weightage will be given for the medals won in various International championships and sports events of the disciplines covered in Olympic Games (Summer, Winter and Paralympics), Asian Games and Commonwealth Games).”

That means Sania winning the WTA Tour championship at the end of 2014, or her doubles and mixed doubles titles in Grand Slams (Wimbledon 2015 does not count as it is outside the qualifying period), don’t mean as much.

However, since the award is given for 2014-15, it is unclear whether Sania’s performances at the 2010 Commonwealth Games and Asian Games would count in addition to the 2014 Asian Games (tennis was not included at the 2014 Commonwealth Games). If they do, she has won a total of six medals in singles, doubles, and mixed doubles, our calculations give Sania roughly 114 points – far more than Girisha.

That would settle the debate immediately. And that’s without taking her WTA tour titles in to account.

If they don’t, and the period is the calendar years from 2011 to 2014, she ends up with roughly 40 points. Her wins on tour – she has three Grand Slam titles in doubles and mixed doubles plus the WTA Championships – would give her additional points but since the value of those points is determined by the selection committee, and there is no indication of how many points were assigned, we can’t put a number on it. Safe to say, given the 80-20 weightage, it would not be enough to take Sania past Girisha.

But, and these are a crucial pair of clauses, the directions for the scheme state the committee does not have to follow the points system blindly.

“Sometimes, the Selection Committee may feel that as per the given criteria, a very deserving sportsperson in a team game may not get Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna. In such a situation, it may recommend such name giving full justification in writing.”

And:

“Selection Committee may not mechanically recommend Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna to the recipient of the highest marks across disciplines. But in a particular sports discipline, award will be recommended only for the recipient of the highest aggregate marks.”

It is possible that her winning Wimbledon this year and rising to become to World No. 1 in women’s doubles – both coming after the eligibility period – swayed the voters. Yet it is hard to see her as undeserving of the award. Sania is undoubtedly a role model for female tennis players across the country.

In that sense, the Khel Ratna, despite having fixed criteria, is also based on the judgment of the committee. A different committee might well have come to a different conclusion. All that matters, at least in terms of the law, is that the proper procedure was followed.

If that turns out to be the case, Sania has nothing to be worried about.

If you want to double check our math, and we encourage you to do so, the points table can be found here.