The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to wrestler Vinesh Phogat, who sought permission to participate in the selection trials for the 2026 Senior World Wrestling Championships scheduled to be held in Astana, Kazakhstan from October 24 to November 1.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed Phogat’s application seeking provisional participation in the Women’s Selection Trials scheduled for September 14 at Indira Gandhi Stadium, New Delhi, holding that the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) applied uniformly to all athletes.
Phogat had challenged the selection framework on the ground that she was unable to participate in several qualifying competitions during 2024-25 because of pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum recovery. She also argued that she had demonstrated her return to competitive wrestling by participating in the Asian Games Selection Trials in May 2026, where she reached the semi-final in the 53 kg category. Notably, at that time, the division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia had granted her interim relief to participate in trials.
However, the Court distinguished the present case from the earlier relief granted to Phogat by the Division Bench, noting that the earlier order was specific to the Asian Games Selection Policy and the first show-cause notice. It further noted that Phogat had subsequently participated in the Asian Games Selection Trials but did not qualify, while a second show-cause notice concerning alleged misconduct during those trials was later issued against her.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the second show-cause notice, the Court held that the subsequent disciplinary proceedings were relevant circumstances while considering Phogat’s another plea for interim participation in the World Wrestling Championship selection trials.
The Court noted that although Phogat sought only an opportunity to participate in the trials and not an automatic right of selection, she was still required to meet the eligibility criteria prescribed by the WFI. Thus, the limited nature of the relief sought could not by itself justify an exemption from the applicable criteria. It observed:
“
“Permitting the petitioner to participate by granting her a special dispensation, therefore, would not only be unfair to other athletes across the country who may have a similar grievance against the policy but are not before this Court, but would also have the effect of opening a Pandora”s box, with other athletes seeking similar exceptions from the prescribed eligibility criteria. Such a direction, at this stage, cannot be issued without first examining and adjudicating upon the validity of the policy itself.”
The Court also emphasised that selection for an international championship involves considerations beyond the individual athlete, and that maintaining a fair and uniform, performance-based selection process is of paramount importance. It therefore declined to relax the common eligibility criteria in Phogat’s favour at the interim stage, particularly when such an exception could affect similarly placed athletes.
The Court noted that the larger question of whether selection policies should provide a mechanism for athletes returning to competitive sport after pregnancy and childbirth, and whether the absence of such a mechanism could make a policy arbitrary or discriminatory, would require detailed consideration at the final stage.
At the same time, the Court declined to carve out a special exception for Phogat at the interim stage, noting that doing so could affect other athletes who may have similar grievances. The Court observed:
“
“The larger question as to how motherhood and maternity are to be balanced against the demands of a sporting career, and whether an athlete ought to require to choose between motherhood and pursuing her career, merits careful consideration. However, that issue is yet to be finally examined and adjudicated upon in the present proceedings. Till the validity and applicability of the selection policy itself is adjudicated upon, the eligibility criteria prescribed thereunder cannot simply be set aside or wished away in the case of one athlete, and 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.”
The Court also took note of pending disciplinary proceedings against Phogat arising from alleged misconduct during the Asian Games Selection Trials. It clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of those proceedings.
The Court accordingly dismissed Phogat’s application for interim participation, while the main writ petition remains pending. Arguments in the writ petition have been partly heard and the matter is listed for September 29, 2026.
