Delhi HC Division Bench Allows Vinesh Phogat to Participate in Asian Games 2026 Selection Trials, Calls WFI Show Cause Notice Pre-Meditated
The Delhi High Court's Division Bench overturned a Single Judge's refusal of interim relief, holding that Phogat's maternity sabbatical cannot be converted into a disabling factor barring her from selection trials.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, on 22 May 2026 directed the Wrestling Federation of India to permit wrestler Vinesh Phogat to participate in the Asian Games 2026 selection trials scheduled for 30 and 31 May 2026. The Bench disposed of Letters Patent Appeal No. 399/2026, filed against a Single Judge's order of 18 May 2026 that had issued notice in the underlying writ petition but declined to grant any interim protection. The Division Bench found, prima facie, that the WFI's Asian Games Selection Policy and the accompanying Circular were exclusionary and arbitrary in their operation against a woman athlete whose absence from domestic competitions was directly caused by a disclosed maternity sabbatical. It also described the WFI's Show Cause Notice as pre-meditated and mala fide.
The Dispute Before the Division Bench
Phogat had filed Writ Petition (C) 6766/2026 before a Single Judge challenging two instruments issued by the Wrestling Federation of India: the Asian Games Selection Policy dated 25 February 2026 and the Selection Criteria Circular dated 6 May 2026. Both instruments restricted eligibility for the Asian Games 2026 selection trials to medal winners of specified domestic championships held in 2025 and early 2026, namely the 2025 Senior National Wrestling Championship at Ahmedabad, the 2026 Senior Federation Cup at Ghaziabad, and the Under-20 National Wrestling Championship at Bhilai.
Phogat's position was that she could not have participated in any of those qualifying events because she had taken a formally disclosed maternity sabbatical. She had informed the International Testing Agency and UWW in December 2024 that she would remain on sabbatical until August 2025 on account of her pregnancy. She gave birth to her first child in July 2025. On 30 June 2025, she informed the ITA and UWW that her sabbatical had concluded and that she intended to resume training from 15 July 2025. The ITA, by e-mail dated 3 July 2025, confirmed that she would be eligible to compete from 1 January 2026 onwards.
The writ petition also sought quashing of Show Cause Notice WFI/DC/SCN/2026 dated 9 May 2026, which the WFI had issued in relation to the Paris Olympics weigh-in incident, a matter already adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The SCN had rendered Phogat ineligible from participating in any WFI competitions until 26 June 2026, which covered both the Senior Open Ranking Tournament at Gonda and the Asian Games selection trials.
The Single Judge, by the impugned order of 18 May 2026, issued notice and directed the WFI to bring the SCN to its logical conclusion before the next hearing date of 6 July 2026, but granted no interim relief. Since the selection trials were fixed for 30 and 31 May 2026, Phogat moved the Division Bench by way of the Letters Patent Appeal, contending that the writ petition would be rendered infructuous if no protection was granted before those dates.
The Legal Issue
The narrow question before the Division Bench was whether, during the pendency of the writ petition, Phogat should be permitted to participate in the selection trials given that the next hearing before the Single Judge was fixed for 6 July 2026, well after the trials would have concluded.
The broader constitutional question, to be decided by the Single Judge on merits, was whether the Policy and Circular violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by operating to exclude a woman athlete whose absence from qualifying events was attributable entirely to pregnancy and post-partum recovery.
Senior Advocate Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, appearing for Phogat, argued that she was not seeking automatic qualification or any relaxation of sporting standards. She sought only an opportunity to compete on merit at the trials. He pointed to the WFI's own Guidelines for National Coaching Camps dated 29 April 2025, which preserved a discretion to grant special permission to iconic players for Asian Games trials. He also relied on a 2023 invitation issued by the WFI for the Senior National Wrestling Championship, which expressly provided that the Selection Committee had discretion to select iconic players, including Olympic and World Championship medallists, without trials, on the recommendation of the Chief Coach or an expert.
Counsel for the WFI countered that Phogat had voluntarily retired from the sport and therefore did not participate in the qualifying events. The WFI submitted that the Policy and Circular applied uniformly to all athletes and that it had no power to create exemptions from them.
The Union of India, through its Special Panel Counsel, stated that MYAS had imposed no bar on Phogat's participation but could not step into the WFI's shoes given the risk of international sporting repercussions. The Union offered to arrange independent observers from SAI and the IOA for the trials and to have the proceedings video-recorded.
How the Division Bench Reasoned
Justice Tejas Karia, writing for the Bench, opened the analysis with an observation that motherhood can never become a disability. The Bench stated that a legal and regulatory framework that either expressly or impliedly disadvantages a woman on account of pregnancy or post-partum recovery would violate the principles of non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Bench acknowledged the physiological realities of pregnancy and post-partum recovery for female athletes and held that institutional sporting frameworks cannot remain oblivious to those realities. It stated that motherhood must be viewed as a natural and deeply significant aspect of life that deserves accommodation and institutional sensitivity, and that the law must ensure it does not become a ground for exclusion or marginalisation of female athletes.
On the facts, the Bench found that Phogat's exclusion from the selection trials was directly attributable to her maternity sabbatical and post-partum recovery, the duration of which coincided with the schedule of the domestic championships that formed the eligibility criteria under the Policy and Circular. The Bench held that the Policy and Circular were prima facie completely arbitrary and discriminatory in restricting participation to medal winners of 2025 and 2026 events, thereby disqualifying Phogat without any provision for her circumstances.
The Bench also found that the Policy and Circular represented a significant deviation from the WFI's own past practice. The Guidelines for National Coaching Camps dated 29 April 2025, issued by the WFI itself, preserved a discretion to select iconic players for Asian Games without requiring them to participate in coaching camps to be eligible for trials. The absence of any equivalent discretion in the Policy and Circular, the Bench held, made those instruments exclusionary in a manner that could not be justified.
On the SCN, the Bench was direct. The CAS Award dated 16 August 2024 had recorded in paragraph 126 that Phogat entered the field of play, fought and won three rounds, reached the final of the 50 kg wrestling competition at the Paris Olympics, and that “there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing on her part.” Against that backdrop, the Bench found that the WFI's characterisation of the Paris weigh-in incident as a “national embarrassment” in the SCN was deplorable. The Bench described those observations as pre-meditated, ex-facie misconceived, retrograde, and reflective of a mala fide and vindictive intent on the part of the WFI against Phogat.
The Bench also noted that Phogat had been physically present at the Gonda tournament venue after registering for the event but was prevented from participating on account of the SCN-based ineligibility.
Applying the principle that a woman cannot be prejudiced in her employment, career, ranking or promotion during a period of maternity leave, the Bench held that the Policy and Circular required examination by the Single Judge on merits. In the meanwhile, it held that it was necessary to permit Phogat to participate in the selection trials in the interest of sport and justice, since the circumstances that led to her exclusion were beyond her control.
Outcome
The Division Bench disposed of LPA 399/2026 with three specific directions. First, Phogat shall be permitted to participate in the Asian Games 2026 selection trials on 30 and 31 May 2026. Second, the WFI shall video-record the selection trials. Third, the Union of India shall nominate two independent observers, one each from the Sports Authority of India and the Indian Olympic Association, to observe the trials and submit a report before the Single Judge in the pending writ petition.
The Bench clarified that it had made no observations on the merits of the writ petition and that all parties remained free to raise all available pleas before the Single Judge. The Single Judge was directed to decide the writ petition without being influenced by the observations in the Division Bench's order, which were confined to the limited interim issue.
The pending applications in the Letters Patent Appeal were also disposed of.