Delhi High Court: The present writ petition filed by petitioner, Wrestler Vinesh Phogat, sought for issuance of directions to Respondent 1, Wrestling Federation of India (WFI), to formulate and implement a fair, transparent and structured framework governing the return of women athletes to competitive sport following pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum recovery, so that maternity-related absence does not, by itself, operate to their disadvantage in accessing domestic competitions, Selection Trials or subsequent selection opportunities.
While acknowledging the larger question of whether sporting selection policies must accommodate athletes returning after maternity and whether the absence of such a mechanism could render a policy arbitrary or discriminatory, Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma*, J., declined to grant interim relief to wrestler Vinesh Phogat permitting her to participate in the selection trials for the 2026 Senior World Wrestling Championships, holding that maternity-related absence doesn’t warrant interim exemption from uniform selection criteria. The Court further held that such relief would effectively amount to “carving out an exception, only in her favour” before the validity of the selection policy itself was adjudicated. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the interim application, leaving the substantive challenge to the selection framework and the pending disciplinary proceedings open for final adjudication.
Background
The petitioner is a competitive wrestler who remained away from active competition during 2024 — 2025 on account of pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum recovery. During this period, she informed the concerned sporting and anti-doping authorities about her sabbatical and proposed return to competition. The International Testing Agency, acting on behalf of United World Wrestling, by communication dated 3 July 2025, confirmed that she would be eligible to compete from 1 January 2026 onwards.
The WFI subsequently framed the Asian Games Selection Policy dated 25 February 2026. Eligibility for the Asian Games Selection Trials was linked to participation in specified qualifying competitions during 2025 and 2026. Since the petitioner had been away from competition during her maternity-related absence, she had been unable to participate in those competitions and was consequently excluded from the selection process.
The petitioner thereafter registered for the Senior Open Ranking Tournament at Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, scheduled from 10 to 12 May 2026. The Asian Games Selection Trials were scheduled for 30 and 31 May 2026. However, on 9 May 2026, immediately prior to the Gonda tournament, WFI issued a show-cause notice (first SCN) and declared her ineligible to participate in WFI events till 26 June 2026. She was consequently prevented from participating in the Gonda tournament.
The petitioner challenged the first SCN and the Asian Games Selection Policy before the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench, in Vinesh Phogat v. Wrestling Federation of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3925, by judgment dated 22 May 2026, had made prima facie observations that the Asian Games Selection Policy appeared “completely arbitrary, discriminatory and exclusionary in nature” and observed that motherhood could not operate to prejudice a woman in her career. The Court also had observed that the first SCN appeared to be pre-mediated. While leaving the merits to be decided by the Single Judge, the Division Bench permitted the petitioner to participate in the Asian Games Selection Trials.
Pursuant to that order, the petitioner participated in the Asian Games Selection Trials on 30 May 2026 in the 53 kg category and reached the semi-final. She was ultimately not selected for the Asian Games. Thereafter, WFI issued a second show-cause notice (second SCN) dated 17 June 2026 alleging misconduct/indiscipline during those very selection trials.
On 6 July 2026, writ petition was disposed of, the challenge to the Asian Games Selection Policy had become infructuous, and WFI was directed to decide the first SCN dated 9 May 2026 within two weeks. Despite subsequent communications and meeting notices, neither the first nor the second SCN had culminated in a final order by the time of the present proceedings.
Meanwhile, WFI issued a Circular dated 7 September 2026 prescribing eligibility criteria for the Selection Trials for the 2026 Senior World Wrestling Championships. The Women’s Selection Trials were scheduled for 14 September 2026 at Indira Gandhi Stadium, New Delhi, and the Championships were scheduled to be held from 24 October to 1 November 2026 at Astana, Kazakhstan. The eligibility criteria were based on specified competitions, including the 2025 Senior National Wrestling Championship, 2026 Senior Open Ranking Tournament at Gonda, 2026 U23 National Wrestling Championship, Federation Cup, National Coaching Camp and 2026 U20 World Championship.
The petitioner therefore filed an application seeking, inter alia, provisional inclusion in the eligibility pool and permission to participate in the 14 September 2026 Selection Trials.
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner contended that the Circular dated 7 September 2026 perpetuated the same exclusionary selection framework which had already been prima facie criticised by the Division Bench.
It was submitted that the Circular prescribed a closed list of qualifying competitions without providing any mechanism for athletes returning to competitive sport after pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum recovery. Her non-participation in the prescribed competitions was not attributable to lack of sporting ability or unwillingness but to her pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum recovery. She had demonstrated her return to competitive wrestling by participating in the Asian Games Selection Trials on 30 May 2026 in the 53 kg category and reaching the semi-final.
The petitioner expressly did not claim an automatic or vested right to selection, but only an opportunity to participate in the Selection Trials. Further, the WFI could not rely upon her non-participation in the Gonda Senior Open Ranking Tournament when WFI itself had prevented her from participating through the first SCN after having confirmed her registration. Mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings could not constitute an automatic bar, particularly because the Circular referred to wrestlers who had been “found guilty” of indiscipline, whereas no final finding of guilt or operative order of disqualification had been made against her.
Lastly, it was contended that since the Selection Trials were scheduled for 14 September 2026, refusal of interim relief would effectively defeat the substantive challenge because the selection process and ensuing Championship could conclude before the writ petition was finally adjudicated.
WFI’s Contentions
WFI opposed the interim relief and submitted that the petitioner had no vested right to participate in the Selection Trials without satisfying the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Circular dated 7 September 2026.
It was submitted that the eligibility criteria were uniformly prescribed for all athletes and could not be relaxed specifically for the petitioner. The earlier Division Bench order permitting her to participate in the Asian Games Selection Trials was confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and did not create any continuing exemption. Several qualifying competitions under the present Circular were held after the petitioner’s sabbatical had ended, yet she had not participated in them.
It was further contended that the pending disciplinary proceedings were relevant, particularly since repeated opportunities had been given to the petitioner to appear before WFI. Permitting her to participate provisionally would prejudice the uniform selection process and athletes who had complied with the eligibility requirements. Also, the fact that the petitioner sought participation rather than automatic selection did not confer a right to participate contrary to the prescribed eligibility criteria.
Issues for Determination
-
Whether the petitioner could, at the interim stage, be exempted from the eligibility criteria prescribed by WFI for the 2026 Senior World Wrestling Championships Selection Trials?
-
Whether the petitioner’s maternity-related absence from qualifying competitions justified provisional participation notwithstanding her failure to satisfy the prescribed criteria?
-
Whether the earlier Division Bench order permitting her participation in the Asian Games Selection Trials created a continuing or general exemption from subsequent eligibility criteria?
-
Whether the pendency of the first and second show-cause proceedings was a relevant circumstance while considering the request for interim participation?
-
Whether granting an individual exception, before adjudicating the validity of the selection policy itself, would be fair to other similarly situated athletes and consistent with a uniform national selection process?
Analysis
At the outset, the Court acknowledged that the Division Bench had made prima facie observations concerning the exclusionary character of the earlier Asian Games Selection Policy and had permitted the petitioner to participate in the Asian Games Selection Trials. However, that relief was granted in the context of the then-existing Asian Games Selection Policy and the first SCN.
The Court held that the earlier order “cannot, at this stage, be construed as conferring upon the petitioner any general or continuing exemption from the eligibility criteria prescribed by WFI for subsequent competitions”.
The Court noted that the petitioner had in fact participated pursuant to that order, reached the semi-final, but was not ultimately selected. The subsequent second SCN concerning alleged misconduct during those very trials was also a relevant subsequent development.
The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations in the second SCN because those proceedings were themselves under challenge. Nevertheless, the Court held that their pendency was a relevant circumstance in determining whether another interim direction permitting participation in an international selection process should be granted.
The Court noted that the second SCN arose from alleged misconduct during the same Selection Trials in which the petitioner had been permitted to participate pursuant to the Division Bench order. Therefore, the present case could not be examined solely through the lens of the petitioner’s earlier maternity-related absence.
The Court examined the chronology of the proceedings before WFI and noted that following the order dated 6 July 2026, WFI issued a meeting notice dated 15 July 2026 fixing the meeting for 22 July 2026. The petitioner did not appear and instead objected to the composition of the Committee. A further notice dated 31 July 2026 was issued in relation to the second SCN, fixing the meeting for 7 August 2026. Again, the petitioner did not appear and raised a similar objection. Another notice dated 21 August 2026 fixed the meeting for 2 September 2026, following which the petitioner filed the present writ petition. A further notice dated 5 September 2026 fixed the meeting concerning the first SCN for 9 September 2026.
The Court therefore found that the record prima facie indicated that repeated opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to appear before the Disciplinary Committee and place her case. She had chosen not to avail the first three opportunities and had instead raised objections concerning disclosure of the Committee’s composition.
The Court also examined the Circular dated 7 September 2026 and noted that it prescribed eligibility based on participation in specified competitions and categories. Importantly, the Court found that the criteria were not framed specifically against the petitioner but were applicable uniformly to athletes seeking to participate in the Selection Trials.
The Court recognised that the petitioner had been unable to participate in some qualifying competitions because of pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum recovery, and that she had also been unable to participate in the Gonda tournament because of the first SCN. However, those circumstances were matters that would be considered when the Court examined the validity and application of the selection framework in the substantive proceedings.
The Court did not finally determine whether WFI’s selection policy was discriminatory or arbitrary. Instead, it recognised the broader question, i.e., whether a selection policy ought to provide an appropriate mechanism for athletes returning to competitive sport after pregnancy and childbirth, and whether the absence of such a mechanism renders the policy arbitrary or discriminatory.
The Court opined that this question required detailed consideration at the stage of final adjudication. Thus, the Court did not reject the petitioner’s substantive grievance. Rather, it held that the grievance could not, at the interim stage, justify an exemption from the uniformly applicable criteria.
Consequently, the Court declined to grant an interim exemption, holding that an athlete who had not participated in the prescribed competitions, “for whatever reason”, would not fall within the eligibility categories specified by WFI. The petitioner’s pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum recovery were circumstances that required consideration in deciding the validity of the policy. But those circumstances did not, at the interim stage, automatically entitle her to participate contrary to the eligibility criteria. Further, the earlier Division Bench order did not alter this conclusion because it was granted in a different factual and legal context.
The Court rejected the distinction sought to be drawn between a right to participate and a right to be selected. Although the petitioner did not claim an automatic or vested right to represent India at the World Championships, the Court held that participation in the Selection Trials itself was subject to WFI’s eligibility criteria. Accordingly, it Court held that the fact that she sought only participation and not selection did not dispense with the requirement of satisfying the eligibility criteria.
Considering the consequences of granting provisional participation to the petitioner, the Court held that doing so would, “in substance, amount to carving out an exception, only in her favour”, from eligibility criteria applicable to all other athletes. Such a dispensation could be unfair to other athletes across the country who might have similar grievances but were not before the Court. The Court further observed that such a direction could have the effect of “opening a Pandora’s box” by prompting other athletes to seek similar exceptions. Therefore, such relief could not appropriately be granted before the validity of the selection policy itself had been examined and adjudicated.
The Court emphasised that selection to represent the country at an international championship involves considerations beyond the individual claim of a particular athlete. It observed that the country’s interest in ensuring that its representatives are selected through a “fair, uniform and performance-based process” is of paramount importance. Therefore, at the interim stage, the eligibility criteria applicable to all athletes could not be relaxed in favour of the petitioner alone, particularly when doing so could affect similarly situated athletes who were not before the Court.
The Court was conscious of the larger issue concerning the relationship between motherhood, maternity and a sporting career and observed that the question of “how motherhood and maternity are to be balanced against the demands of a sporting career”, including whether an athlete should be required to choose between motherhood and pursuing her career, merited careful consideration. However, it made clear that this issue had not yet been finally examined or adjudicated.
Accordingly, the Court held that until the validity and applicability of the selection policy were determined, the eligibility criteria could not simply be set aside in the case of one athlete.
“..a special class cannot be carved out in favour of the petitioner, particularly when other athletes similarly placed may also face a comparable dilemma and may be required to make similar choices in the course of their sporting careers.”
Decision
The Court declined to grant interim participation without first adjudicating the validity of the policy itself.
The Court did not finally determine:
-
whether the Circular dated 7 September 2026 is arbitrary or discriminatory;
-
whether WFI is legally required to incorporate a special mechanism for athletes returning after pregnancy and childbirth;
-
whether the petitioner’s maternity-related absence should ultimately be treated differently for purposes of selection eligibility;
-
the merits of the allegations contained in the first or second SCN;
-
whether the petitioner should ultimately be permitted to participate in subsequent competitions.
The Court listed the matter on 29 September 2026, the date already fixed.
[Vinesh Phogat v. Wrestling Federation of India, W.P.(C) 12674/2026, decided on 10-9-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Adv. with Ms. Aashita Khanna, Mr. Ritwik Prakash, Mr. Neil M. Goswami and Ms. Vishakha Gupta, Advs.
For the Respondent 1: Mr. Hemant Phalpher and Mr. Karishmit Keswani, Advs.
For the Respondent 2: Mr. Udit Dedhiya, SPC with Mr. Rahul Mourya, GP and with Mr. Preyansh Gupta and Mr. Arihant Shrivardhan, Advs.
For the Respondent IOA: Ms. Kumudavalli Seetharaman and Ms. Geetika Vyas, Advs.
For the Respondent 4: Ms. Rajni Gupta, SPP – CBI with Mr. Shivendra Gupta and Mr. Siddharth Shekhar, Advs.