NEW DELHI, October 14: The Union Sports Ministry has removed para shooting coach Jai Prakash Nautiyal from India’s contingent for the 2026 Asian Para Games following allegations of irregularities in the selection process and demands for an investigation.
Veteran national coach Jeevan L. Rai has been appointed as Nautiyal’s replacement for the continental competition, which is scheduled to begin in Aichi-Nagoya, Japan, on October 18.
The ministry’s decision came after protests by para shooters and concerns raised over the selection of athletes for the Games. The controversy has added pressure to India’s preparations at a time when the team is completing final arrangements for one of the most important competitions in the Asian para-sports calendar.
The Sports Ministry has approved a contingent of 166 athletes for the event. The squad announcement followed a period of uncertainty over selections, with complaints also emerging from para-cycling athletes.
The removal of the coach represents an administrative change within the contingent, although it does not by itself resolve all the questions raised by protesting athletes. The allegations and the demand for a broader examination of the selection process remain important issues for the sporting authorities.
Coach replaced days before the competition
The decision to remove Nautiyal came only days before the opening of the Asian Para Games, leaving limited time for the coaching staff to complete preparations and coordinate responsibilities.
Jeevan L. Rai, a long serving national coach, has taken over the role. His experience in the sport is expected to help maintain continuity in the team’s preparations as Indian shooters travel to Japan for the competition.
A coaching change so close to a major international event can create practical challenges. Coaches are responsible for coordinating training, understanding athletes’ technical requirements, preparing competition plans and ensuring that team members are ready for the demands of their events.
For para-shooters, preparation may also involve individual equipment adjustments, classification-related requirements, training routines and the specific needs of athletes with different disabilities.
The replacement coach must therefore work closely with the athletes and support personnel to ensure that the administrative change does not unnecessarily disrupt their competitive preparations.
The ministry’s action came amid allegations that established selection criteria had not been followed in some cases. Several athletes had sought the removal of Nautiyal and an investigation into the complaints.
The allegations should be distinguished from established findings. Their existence prompted protests and administrative action, but the removal of a coach does not itself establish that every allegation is proven.
Protests raise questions about selection procedures
The controversy developed after para-shooters and coaches expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of the selection process for the Games.
More than 10 para-shooters and coaches reportedly protested during preparations for the contingent’s departure, alleging favouritism and irregularities. Some athletes claimed that selection decisions did not adequately reflect established criteria and competitive performances.
Among those raising concerns were shooters who said their rankings and results should have placed them in a stronger position for selection.
Akash, identified in reports as India’s leading competitor in the mixed 50-metre pistol SH1 category, alleged that he had been unfairly excluded from the squad. Another shooter, Sandeep Kumar, also raised concerns about the selection process and made allegations against Nautiyal.
Nautiyal denied the accusations and maintained that selections were based on established criteria and performances in trials, according to reports published earlier in the dispute.
The competing claims have made transparency a central issue. Athletes need to understand how selection decisions are reached, particularly when places in an international team are limited and competitors have invested substantial time in training.
Clear criteria, documented results and consistent procedures can help reduce disputes and provide athletes with a fair opportunity to challenge decisions they believe are incorrect.
The controversy has also highlighted the importance of ensuring that complaints are examined through a process that is independent, credible and fair to all parties.
Demand for investigation adds pressure
The protesting athletes sought more than a change in coaching personnel. They also called for an investigation into the allegations surrounding selection and the treatment of competitors.
Such demands reflect concerns about accountability within elite sport. National teams are expected to select athletes according to clearly defined standards, while officials and coaches are expected to apply those standards consistently.
When athletes believe that decisions are not transparent, confidence in the selection process can suffer. That loss of confidence may affect relationships between competitors, coaches and administrators, especially when a major competition is approaching.
An effective response requires authorities to examine the evidence, establish the facts and communicate their findings appropriately.
It is also important that the process protects the rights of those making complaints as well as those accused of wrongdoing. Allegations should be assessed on the evidence rather than treated as established facts before an investigation is completed.
The ministry’s decision to remove Nautiyal from the contingent addresses the immediate question of who will serve as coach at the Games. A separate examination of the underlying allegations would be needed to determine whether selection rules were breached and whether further action is warranted.
The distinction is important because administrative changes and accountability proceedings serve different purposes.
India approves 166 athletes for the Games
Alongside the coaching change, the Sports Ministry approved a 166-athlete contingent for the Asian Para Games in Aichi-Nagoya.
The event, scheduled to begin on October 18, will bring together athletes from across Asia competing in a range of para-sports disciplines. For India, the competition provides an opportunity to test its athletes against leading competitors from the region and build on the country’s previous performances.
India enjoyed a landmark campaign at the previous edition of the Asian Para Games, winning 108 medals, including 27 gold medals. The achievement marked the first time the country crossed the 100-medal threshold at the competition.
That record has raised expectations for the next campaign. However, repeating or improving on a previous medal tally requires strong performances across disciplines, careful preparation and effective coordination between athletes and their support teams.
The size of the approved contingent indicates that India will have representation across multiple events. Yet the final medal outcome will depend on individual performances, competitive fields, athlete readiness and the circumstances of each event.
The selection controversy has created an additional challenge for administrators because preparations must continue while the complaints are being addressed.
For athletes, the priority will be to maintain focus on competition despite the uncertainty surrounding the administrative dispute.
Para-sport selection requires transparent standards
Selection for elite para-sport competitions can involve several considerations, including trial results, performance standards, event-specific requirements and the number of places available.
These factors make it particularly important for sporting bodies to explain their decisions clearly. Athletes need to know the criteria before trials begin and should have access to relevant information about how results are evaluated.
Transparent procedures also help national federations identify potential weaknesses in their systems. If complaints emerge, authorities can review whether the rules were communicated properly, whether decisions were recorded and whether athletes had an appropriate channel for raising concerns.
The current controversy has brought these issues into focus ahead of the Asian Para Games.
A credible review could help establish whether the reported concerns arose from misunderstandings, differences in interpretation or genuine procedural shortcomings. Any conclusions should be based on documented evidence and the applicable selection regulations.
The case also illustrates why complaint-handling mechanisms need to function effectively before major competitions rather than only after disputes become public.
Timely clarification can reduce uncertainty for athletes and coaches, allowing them to concentrate on training and competition.
Para-cycling concerns widen the debate
The selection dispute has not been confined to para-shooting. Para-cycling athletes have also raised concerns about their representation in the Indian contingent.
Reports indicated that para-cycling chief coach Aditya Mehta withdrew from the delegation in protest over the exclusion of eligible cyclists. The dispute left Arshad Shaik as India’s lone cyclist for the competition, accompanied by a technician for support.
The para-cycling issue has drawn attention to broader questions about how athletes are identified, evaluated and selected for international events.
Different sports have different qualification systems, technical requirements and selection procedures. Nevertheless, athletes across disciplines need confidence that decisions are being made fairly and according to published standards.
The emergence of concerns in more than one sport places greater importance on communication between the Sports Ministry, the relevant national federations and athlete representatives.
Authorities must balance the need to complete selections within strict deadlines with the responsibility to consider legitimate complaints.
When disputes occur close to an international event, the available time for corrective action becomes limited. This can affect athletes who may have to adjust their preparations or reconsider their participation.
The immediate priority remains ensuring that the approved contingent is adequately supported and that any unresolved issues are addressed through appropriate channels.
Medal ambitions remain in focus
Despite the administrative controversy, India enters the Asian Para Games with an opportunity to continue developing its presence in para-sport.
The country has produced notable performers in shooting, archery, badminton, table tennis and other disciplines. Athletes such as Avani Lekhara, Bhavina Patel, Suhas Yathiraj and archer Sheetal Devi have helped raise the profile of Indian para-sport through their achievements.
Their participation and performances have also helped demonstrate the importance of sustained training, specialist coaching and institutional support for athletes with disabilities.
However, a successful campaign depends on more than the reputation of individual competitors. Team management, equipment, recovery, technical assistance and a stable preparation environment all contribute to results.
The recent controversy highlights the need for sporting institutions to protect those conditions while ensuring that selection systems remain fair and accountable.
For athletes preparing to compete in Japan, the final days before the opening ceremony are particularly important. Maintaining focus and receiving clear guidance from coaches and officials can help limit the effect of developments outside competition.
Authorities face a test of accountability
The removal of Nautiyal has addressed one immediate aspect of the dispute, but the wider issue of selection transparency remains significant.
The Sports Ministry and the relevant sporting authorities will face questions about how complaints are examined, how selection criteria are applied and what safeguards exist to prevent future disputes.
A transparent process can help rebuild confidence among athletes and demonstrate that concerns are taken seriously. It can also help administrators identify procedural improvements without allowing unresolved allegations to overshadow the work of competitors.
At the same time, the rights of all parties must be respected. Allegations require proper examination, and conclusions should be drawn only after the relevant evidence has been assessed.
As India prepares for the October 18 opening of the Asian Para Games, the team will need to balance the demands of competition with the need to restore confidence in its administrative arrangements.
The 166-athlete contingent now moves towards the event with a revised para-shooting coaching structure. Its sporting performance will be judged by results on the field of play, while the questions raised over selection will require a separate and credible response from the authorities.
The episode serves as a reminder that athlete welfare, transparent selection and accountable administration are essential components of a successful high-performance sporting system.