Sudipti Hajela vs Equestrian Federation Of India & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 03.07.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 06.07.2026
+ LPA 458/2026 & CM Nos.39837/2026 & 39839/2026
ANUSH AGARWALLA .....Appellant
versus
AD-HOC COMMITTEE FOR GOVERNANCE OF
EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA
AND ORS .....Respondents
+ LPA 459/2026, CM Nos.39840/2026 & 39842/2026
SUDIPTI HAJELA .....Appellant
versus
EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA
& ORS. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in these cases
For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Mehra, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Anju
Thomas, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Ms.
Pratibha Yadav, Mr. Bhanu Mishra,
Ms. Jyotika, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain
and Mr. H. Chimthanawala,
Advocates in LPA 458/2026.
Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Kritika Gupta, Mr. Mohit
Kumar Sharma, Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr.
M. Khurana, Advocates along with
Appellant in person through VC
in LPA 459/2026.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 1 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
For the Respondents : Mr. Tanmay Mehta with Mr. Kapil
Modi, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Rishabh
Parikh, Advs for R-1.
Col. Sandeep Dewan (Veteran) for
R-2 in LPA 458/2026.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.
Udit Dedhiya, SPC, Mr. Amit
Gupta, Mr. R.V. Prabhat, Mr.
Shubham Sharma, Mr. Yash
Wardhan Sharma, Ms. Apurva
Sachdev, Mr. Priyansh Gupta,
Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Kumudavalli Seetharaman, Ms.
Geetika Vyas, Advocates with Mr.
George Mathew, Director IOA for
IOA.
Mr. Shiv Verma, Advocate for R-5 to
R-7.
Mr. Kirat Singh Nagra, Mr. Kartik
Yadav, Ms. Sumedha Chadha,
Advocates for Mr. Hriday Chheda.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
1. The present Appeals arise out of the common judgment dated
29.06.2026 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed in W.P.(C) No. 8329/2026 and
W.P.(C) No. 8290/2026 (“ Writ Petitions ”).
2. The Writ Petitions were instituted assailing the Selection Process
adopted by the Ad-Hoc Committee of the Equestrian Federation of India
(“ EFI ”) in issuing the selection list dated 16.06.2026 (“ Selection List ”) for
th
participation in the Equestrian discipline of Dressage at the 20 Asian Games,
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 2 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
scheduled to be held in Japan from 19.09.2026 to 04.10.2026 (“ Asian
Games ”).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
3. EFI is the National Sports Federation (“ NSF ”) for Equestrian Sports in
India and is recognised by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports,
Government of India (“ Ministry ”), the Indian Olympic Association (“ IOA ”)
and the Federation Equestre Internationale (“ FEI ”).
4. In 2025, the Ministry issued a notification formulating the Selection
Criteria for the Asian Games, Para-Asian Games 2026 and other multi-sport
events.
5. On 12.02.2026, EFI issued Selection Criteria Version 4.0 (“ Selection
Criteria ”) for selection of the Indian Equestrian Team for the Asian Games,
prescribing the qualifying period, Minimum Eligibility Requirements
(“ MER ”) and the method for evaluation of riders on the basis of comparative
merit by the Selection Committee to be appointed by EFI (“ Selection
Committee ”).
6. Under the Selection Criteria for qualification for the Asian Games, all
riders were required to participate in the Selection Process across three (3)
disciplines, namely Dressage, Show Jumping and Eventing.
7. For the purposes of the present Appeals, the relevant criteria pertain
only to the Dressage Event of the Asian Games, which comprise of both Team
and Individual competitions conducted in a mixed format. The first day would
comprise of the Team Competition and the First Individual Qualifier
Competition, followed by the Second Individual Qualifier Competition on the
second day and the Individual Final Competition on the third day. For
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 3 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
qualification in the Dressage Event, riders are permitted to compete in up to
three (3) nominated qualifying competitions during the MER window and, for
determination of the order of merit, the best two (2) results in which MERs
had been achieved within the prescribed limits are to be considered. The
Selection Procedure further provides that up to six (6) riders, described as
Probables, would be shortlisted based on the competitive merit of each horse-
rider combination. For inclusion in the list of Probables, each horse-rider
combination was required to achieve at least one (1) valid MER within the
prescribed limits, and participation in at least one (1) out of the three (3)
competitions was mandatory. In respect of the Dressage Event, the highest
cumulative score was to be taken into consideration for determining merit.
The six (6) Probables shortlisted based on MERs/Results in the Selection
Trials, and the three (3) or four (4) riders securing the highest scores, were to
be selected as the final Team nominees on merit to represent India.
8. In terms of Clause 5(c)(i) of the Selection Criteria, riders based abroad
who intend to participate in the Selection Trials are required to intimate EFI,
by SMS, e-mail or WhatsApp, at least seven (7) days prior to the date of the
first horse inspection for each trial.
9. Clause 8(d) of the Selection Criteria prescribes that, for qualification in
the Dressage Event, participation in, and attainment of the prescribed
qualification scores across, all three (3) tests, namely Prix St. Georges
(“ PSG ”), Intermediate-I and Intermediate-I Freestyle, was mandatory. For
selection to the Team, the MER required a minimum score of 66% in PSG
and participation in Intermediate-I and Intermediate-I Freestyle. In the event
that a Team cannot be constituted, individual nominations are to be made in
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 4 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
respect of two (2) individual combinations, which had achieved the MER,
requiring participation in PSG and a minimum score of 69% each in
Intermediate-I and Intermediate-I Freestyle. Clause 8(f) of the Selection
Citeria further provides that, while considering the composition of the Team,
all combinations which had attained MERs in the Individual category would
be placed higher in merit than those which had attained MERs only in the
Team category. The said clause also required EFI to publish a Provisional
Merit List of six (6) Probables, from which the final Team and/or individual
nominations were to be confirmed.
10. Clause 13(d) of the Selection Criteria provides that, for determining the
order of merit amongst Probables having the same number of MERs, their
relative merit would be decided based on the aggregate scores, and the rider
with the higher cumulative score would be placed above the others. Clause
13(g) of the Selection Criteria further provides that, while determining the
order of merit for Dressage, the best two (2) valid results from MER-level
competitions would be taken into consideration, and riders would be ranked
based on the highest cumulative percentage scores across those two (2)
results. The comparison is to be made first amongst combinations, which had
achieved two (2) MERs and, thereafter, amongst those which had achieved
only one (1) MER each.
11. Clause 13(i) of the Selection Criteria further stipulates that based on the
order of merit, a team of six (6) riders, including reserves, would be selected
for further training under the aegis of EFI. Such riders were to be trained either
in India or abroad, subject to availability of budget and such other conditions
as may be determined by EFI.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 5 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
12. Clause 15 of the Selection Criteria sets out the procedure for selection
of the final Teams for the Asian Games. Clause 15(a) provides that all selected
combinations would be treated as Probables until EFI, in consultation with
the Selection Committee and coaches, undertakes a further review of the
entire Selection Process prior to submission of the final entries for the Asian
Games. It further provides that the fitness of riders and horses, the suitability
of the horse-rider combination, performance during coaching camps and merit
ascertained from competitive exposure would be of paramount importance
and be taken into consideration for final selection of the Team and/or
Individual Entries, with a view to ensuring that the best combinations are
selected to secure medals for the country.
13. Clause 15(b) of the Selection Criteria provides that horse-rider
combinations selected as Probables would be required to participate in
competitions at venues to be decided and facilitated by EFI, for the purposes
of providing necessary competitive exposure, ensuring maintenance of fitness
and form, and enabling the Selection Committee to take a final call on the
final order of merit, on the basis of which the Team would be finalised. Clause
15(f) of the Selection Criteria further reserves to EFI the right to amend the
Selection Criteria, if such amendment became necessary under compelling
circumstances.
14. On 27.03.2026, the IOA constituted an Ad-Hoc Committee for
governance of the affairs of EFI, in consonance with the directions issued by
this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10342/2019 vide order dated 16.02.2026.
15. On 17.04.2026, EFI issued Amendment No. 1 to the Selection Criteria
(“ Amendment ”). The stated purpose of the Amendment was to align the
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 6 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
Selection Criteria with the actual competitive requirements of the Asian
Games and to ensure validation of recent performance by requiring at least
one (1) MER during the Peak-window between 17.04.2026 and 15.06.2026.
The Amendment further provided that to afford the Probable athletes a wider
opportunity to qualify, the number of permissible qualifying competitions was
increased from three (3) to four (4), while retaining the requirement that the
best two (2) valid results would be considered for determining comparative
merit.
16. The Amendment also substituted Clause 8(d)(i) of the Selection
Criteria, whereby participation in, and achievement of the prescribed
qualifying scores across, all three (3) tests was made mandatory. The said
requirement was introduced having regard to the Asian Games competition
format, which mandated performance across all three (3) tests, to ensure that
only those horse-rider combinations demonstrating complete competitive
preparedness at the international level were considered for selection.
17. On 16.06.2026, the Ad-Hoc Committee of EFI, in consultation with its
Selection Committee, issued the Selection List, whereby six (6) sportspersons
were identified for participation in the Asian Games in the discipline of
Dressage. Of the six (6) sportspersons included in the Selection List, four (4)
were selected to participate in the Asian Games, whereas Mr. Anush
Agarwalla, Appellant in LPA 458/2026, and Ms. Sudipti Hajela, Appellant in
LPA 459/2026, were placed in the Reserve List. As per the Selection List, Mr.
Anush Agarwalla was placed as Reserve No. 1 and Ms. Sudipti Hajela as
Reserve No. 2.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 7 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
18. Aggrieved by their inclusion in the Reserve List, the Appellants
instituted the Writ Petitions seeking quashing of the Selection List and
consequential inclusion in the final list for the Asian Games. By the Impugned
Judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions and declined
to interfere with the Selection List. Hence, the present Appeals have been
preferred assailing the Impugned Judgment.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF MR. ANUSH AGARWALLA
19. Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Anush Agarwalla,
made the following submissions:
19.1. Mr. Anush Agarwalla is an internationally competing Dressage
rider who participated in the Selection Process conducted by EFI
in accordance with the Selection Criteria. The Selection Criteria
further provided that it was to be read in conjunction with the Sport
Technical Handbook issued for the Asian Games (“ Sport
Technical Handbook ”) and the applicable FEI Regulations. The
Sport Technical Handbook similarly prescribed the MER and
technical standards for participation in Dressage events and
contemplated selection based on objective competitive
performances achieved during the qualifying period.
19.2. Pursuant to the Selection Criteria, Dressage riders were required
to achieve the prescribed MER through participation in recognised
FEI competitions. The Selection Criteria specifically provided that
horse-rider combinations would be evaluated based on their best
two (2) valid MER results and that riders would be ranked on the
basis of the highest cumulative percentage scores achieved across
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 8 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
such results. Clause 15 of the Selection Criteria stipulated that EFI
would publish a provisional merit list of six (6) Probables, from
which the final team would be selected based on trials.
19.3. The comparative merit was not merely one among several
considerations but constituted the foundation of the selection
framework. For Small Tour Team selection, the Selection Criteria
prescribed a minimum score of 66% only for the PSG test, whereas
Intermediate-I and Intermediate-I Freestyle merely required
participation. Thus, PSG constituted the sole merit-bearing Team
MER test. The Selection Criteria did not prescribe any formula for
combining Intermediate-I and Intermediate-I Freestyle scores with
PSG scores for preparation of the Selection List.
19.4. The Ad-Hoc Committee was expected to function collectively and
to oversee the governance of EFI as well as the Selection Process.
The Amendment specifically recorded that the objective of the Ad-
Hoc Committee was to ensure that the Selection Process remained
transparent, objective and in consonance with the applicable
governmental and international requirements.
19.5. On 14.06.2026, immediately prior to the cut-off date, Mr. Anush
Agarwalla submitted a qualification summary to EFI containing
his qualifying scores and the comparative merit calculation
contemplated under the Selection Criteria. He requested the Ad-
Hoc Committee of EFI to disclose the basis for his non-inclusion
in the final team and sought an explanation as to how riders
possessing lower comparative merit had been selected over him.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 9 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
He further requested disclosure of the evaluation process and the
criteria actually applied while arriving at the final selection.
However, no explanation was furnished with respect to the
selection decision.
19.6. Despite specific requests, the Ad-Hoc Committee of EFI failed to
disclose the objective criteria, calculations, scoring methodology
or basis adopted for preparing the final Order of Merit. Mr. Anush
Agarwalla repeatedly sought transparency in the Selection Process
and pointed out that, despite representations and a personal
hearing, no reasons or material had been furnished to justify his
exclusion from the Asian Games Dressage Team.
19.7. During the Selection Process, Mr. Anush Agarwalla was informed
that a Selection Committee comprising Mr. Kapil Modi, Col.
Sandeep Dewan and Mr. Jai Rathore was being constituted to
evaluate and recommend riders. He immediately informed the
Chairperson of the Ad-hoc Committee of EFI that adversarial legal
proceedings were pending between him and Mr. Kapil Modi and,
therefore, Mr. Modi had a clear conflict of interest in relation to
his candidature.
19.8. Although the Ad-Hoc Committee was apprised of the alleged
conflict, Mr. Anush Agarwalla was assured that the issue would
be examined, whereafter he continued to participate in the
Selection Process. No express communication regarding Mr.
Kapil Modi’s recusal was issued to him, and the minutes annexed
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 10 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
with the Counter Affidavit filed on 23.06.2026 constituted the first
intimation of such recusal.
19.9. No Provisional Merit List was published as required under Clause
8(f) of the Selection Criteria, which mandated publication of a list
of six (6) Probables from which final Team and/or Individual
nominations were to be confirmed. Instead, Rank Nos. 1 to 4 were
uploaded as Definitive Entries on the FEI website on 19.06.2026
at 9:27 AM and, thereafter, communicated to the IOA at 4:37 PM.
19.10. EFI failed to facilitate competitions during the Training Period as
contemplated under Clause 15 of the Selection Criteria. Clauses
15(a) and 15(b) of the Selection Criteria required initial selections
to remain Probables, subject to final review and participation in
competitions at venues decided by EFI before finalisation of the
Team.
19.11. EFI bypassed this mandatory process by submitting the Selection
List as Definitive Entries on 19.06.2026 without any amendment
to the Selection Criteria. Clause 15(b) of the Selection Criteria was
mandatory to minimise subjectivity by requiring all Probables to
compete at the same venue, before the same judges and under
comparable conditions.
19.12. The Definitive Entries were prematurely submitted on 19.06.2026,
although the timeline for such submission was 01.07.2026 and the
Nominated Entry Period had been extended to 15.07.2026, thereby
seeking to render the Writ Petitions infructuous despite a caveat
having been filed on 16.06.2026.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 11 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
19.13. Lastly, the Impugned Judgment failed to appreciate that, having
framed and published the Selection Criteria, EFI was bound to
apply the same uniformly and without deviation. EFI could neither
introduce additional criteria nor adopt an alternative methodology
after conclusion of the qualifying competitions, as a public
authority performing public functions must adhere to its self-
imposed rules.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF MS. SUDIPTI HAJELA
20. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned Senior Counsel for Ms. Sudipti Hajela,
made the following submissions:
20.1. Ms. Sudipti Hajela is an international Dressage rider and a Gold
th
Medallist in the Team Dressage event at the 19 Asian Games.
She planned her qualifying competitions, selection strategy and
participation on the basis of the Selection Criteria. It was
submitted that, after completion of the qualifying trials, EFI could
not introduce a new methodology for preparing the comparative
merit list, as such action would defeat the very object of publishing
transparent Selection Criteria and would strike at the fairness of
the Selection Process.
20.2. Ms. Sudipti Hajela fulfilled all prescribed eligibility conditions,
secured the requisite FEI Certificate of Capability and achieved
two (2) valid Team MERs within the prescribed qualifying period.
It was further submitted that the aggregate of her two (2) best
Team MER scores was the second highest amongst the six (6)
sportspersons in question.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 12 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
20.3. While Ms. Sudipti Hajela was awaiting publication of the team
merit list, a caveat dated 16.06.2026 was served upon her by the
Ad-Hoc Committee of EFI at 6:46 PM “ in relation to the selection,
non-selection, order of merit, ranking, nomination, participation
or composition of the Indian Dressage Team for the Asian Games
2026 ”, even before she was informed of the selected team. On
17.06.2026, the Ad-Hoc Committee of EFI published the Selection
List, placing Ms. Sudipti Hajela as Second Reserve. The undated
and unsigned comparative Selection List was published on the
website of EFI without disclosure of the methodology adopted for
determination of comparative merit and without publication of the
mandatory Provisional Merit List contemplated under the
Selection Criteria.
20.4. Neither the constitution of the Selection Committee nor the
minutes of the Selection Committee, nor any score sheet, was
published by the Ad-Hoc Committee of EFI. Within hours of being
informed of the merit list by the Ad-Hoc Committee of EFI, Ms.
Sudipti Hajela raised grievances regarding the departure from
Clause 8(f) of the Selection Criteria and sought a copy of the
marking sheet, which was never provided.
20.5. The Impugned Judgment proceeds in disregard of the admitted and
undisputed fact that the Selection Process was conducted by the
Ad-Hoc Committee of EFI in an opaque and non-transparent
manner. Until filing of its affidavit dated 23.06.2026 in the Writ
Petitions, the Ad-Hoc Committee of EFI had not disclosed or
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 13 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
published the constitution of the Selection Committee entrusted
with evaluating the athletes; had not published the minutes or
deliberations of either the Selection Committee or the Ad-Hoc
Committee recording the basis of selection; had not published the
score sheets, calculations or comparative assessment forming the
basis of the Selection List; had not published the mandatory
Provisional Merit List of six (6) Probables contemplated under
Clause 8(f) of the Selection Criteria; and had not passed or
communicated any reasoned or speaking decision dealing with the
specific objections and grievances raised by Ms. Sudipti Hajela
immediately upon publication of the Selection List.
20.6. The methodology ultimately relied upon by the Ad-Hoc
Committee of EFI to justify the Selection List was disclosed for
the first time only through its Counter Affidavit filed in the Writ
Petitions.
20.7. The learned Single Judge erred in law by treating the controversy
as one involving interpretation of sporting performance and
comparative assessment by an expert Selection Committee. Ms.
Sudipti Hajela did not seek re-evaluation of sporting performance,
nor did she invite the Court to substitute its opinion for that of the
Selection Committee. The challenge was confined to the legality
of the decision-making process adopted by the Ad-Hoc Committee
of EFI and its failure to adhere to the Selection Criteria read with
Amendment. Consequently, the learned Single Judge applied an
erroneous standard of judicial review by examining the
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 14 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
reasonableness of the methodology, rather than examining
whether such methodology was authorised by the published
Selection Criteria.
20.8. The learned Single Judge committed a manifest error of law by
reading into Clause 8(f) of the Selection Criteria words and
concepts which do not exist. Clause 8(f) merely provides that
comparative merit shall be determined on the basis of the best two
(2) valid MER results and the cumulative percentage scores across
those two (2) results. It does not provide that an MER result shall
be treated as the aggregate of the scores obtained in PSG,
Intermediate-I and Intermediate-I Freestyle tests. The
interpretation adopted in the Impugned Judgment, therefore,
amounts to supplementing and rewriting the Selection Criteria
under the guise of interpretation.
20.9. As per Clause 8(f) of the Selection Criteria, athlete-horse
combinations which do not have any valid Individual MER are to
be placed lower in merit than those which have valid Individual
MERs. Since the Selection Criteria categorically provide that only
MER scores are to be considered, non-MER scores, whether Team
or Individual, could not have been taken into account. It was
submitted that, among the three (3) sportspersons who did not have
valid Individual MERs under the Selection Criteria, the order of
merit could only have been determined by comparing cumulative
valid Team MERs. On this basis, Ms. Sudipti Hajela, having the
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 15 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
second highest cumulative Team MER score, ought to have been
placed at Rank No. 4.
20.10. The Impugned Judgment ignores the undisputed fact that, upon
comparison of the cumulative scores of the two (2) highest Team
MER, Ms. Sudipti Hajela’s cumulative score was the second
highest amongst the six (6) sportspersons. The Impugned
Judgment, according to the Appellant, erroneously approves the
mechanism adopted by EFI for determining the inter se Selection
List amongst the three (3) sportspersons who did not have any
valid Individual MER.
20.11. There is no contemporaneous record demonstrating that the
Selection Committee itself adopted the methodology subsequently
disclosed before the Court in the Writ Petitions. The Impugned
Judgment is internally inconsistent. While Paragraph Nos. 9, 22
and 23 proceed on the basis that non-preparation of the list of
Probables and direct notification of the final team were within the
powers of EFI, Paragraph No. 32 relies upon Clause 13(d) of the
Selection Criteria. According to the Appellant, this reliance is
manifestly erroneous, as Clause 13 deals with preparation of the
list of Probables. Admittedly, no such list was prepared, and the
comparative merit in question related to the members of the final
team itself. Therefore, Clause 13(d) of the Selection Criteria would
have no application.
20.12. It was further contended that the interpretation of the Selection
Criteria accepted in the Impugned Judgment would mean that,
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 16 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
irrespective of whether a rider-horse combination has achieved a
valid Team or Individual MER as per international standards, the
“ aggregate scores ” of PSG, Intermediate-I and Intermediate-I
Freestyle would determine the order of merit amongst
sportspersons. On this interpretation, the benchmarks of 66% for
PSG and 69% for Intermediate-I and Intermediate-I Freestyle
separately would become immaterial. It was submitted that, even
on EFI’s own understanding, such methodology for determining
the order of merit was applied only to three (3) sportspersons and
not uniformly to all six (6) sportspersons.
20.13. EFI partially relied upon Clauses 13(d) and 13(g) of the Selection
Criteria, though the said clauses had no applicability in the present
case, since a list of Probables was neither drawn up nor published
by EFI before publication of the Selection List.
20.14. Hence, the Impugned Judgement and the Selection List are liable
to be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF EFI
21. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, learned Counsel for EFI made the following
submissions:
21.1. An Individual MER is regarded as superior to a Team MER. While
a Team MER requires only participation in Intermediate-I and
Intermediate-I Freestyle, an Individual MER requires the horse-
rider combination to obtain at least 69% in Intermediate-I and
Intermediate-I Freestyle. The Amendment merely increased the
number of qualifying competitions from three (3) to four (4) and
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 17 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
did not alter the distinction between Individual MERs and Team
MERs.
21.2. A perusal of the table of selected candidates as reproduced below
shows that combinations having Individual MERs have been
placed above those having only Team MERs:
“ Rank Rider Horse MER Status Scores Considered
1 Shruti Vora Magnanimous 2 Individual
MER
Asian Ch: 70.882/70.147/73.800;
Hickstead: 69.853/70.931/74.400
2 Gaurav Pundir Milli 1 Individual +
1 Team MER
Perila-1: 68.186/68.627/69.717;
Perila-2: 67.451/69.118/70.892
3 Jai Sud Goofy La Perla 1 Individual +
1 Team MER
Vejer: 68.177/67.618/70.840;
Mariakalnok:67.549/69.069/69.750
4 Hriday Chheda Dono Di Maggio 2 Team MERs Gosciszow: 66.814/68.971/71.617;
Verolanouva:68.333/66.912/72.892
5 Anush Agarwalla Straight Horse
Floriana
2 Team MERs Tolbert: 68.725/65.735/69.600;
Lier: 67.294/68.824/69.580
6 Sudipti Hajela Biden 2 Team MERs Gosciszow:68.971/62.745/64.442;
Verolanouva:67.108/64.020/68.433
21.3. Clause 13(d) of the Selection Criteria applies only where riders
have attained the same category and number of MERs. While
considering the composition of the team, combinations having
Individual MERs are placed higher in merit than those having only
Team MERs. Thereafter, amongst riders in the same category of
MERs, their relative merits are determined on the basis of the
aggregate of scores. Since Mr. Hriday Chheda and the Appellants
had attained the same category of MERs, Mr. Hriday Chheda was
placed higher on account of his higher aggregate score. Amongst
riders having the same category of MERs, Clause 13(d) of the
Selection Criteria requires their relative merits to be determined
on the basis of the aggregate of scores. Since Mr. Hriday Chheda
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 18 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
and the Appellants had attained Team MERs, Mr. Hriday Chheda
was placed higher on account of his higher aggregate score.
21.4. Every trial constitutes an independent competition and has to be
considered as a whole. A rider cannot rely upon the PSG score
from one trial, the Intermediate-I score from another trial and the
Intermediate-I Freestyle score from a third trial to constitute a
valid MER.
21.5. The Selection Criteria requires a rider to intimate EFI at least
seven (7) days in advance of the international competition in
which qualification is sought and specify the category in which the
rider would participate. Mr. Anush Agarwalla had not declared
participation in PSG and had declared only Intermediate-I
participation for CDI Hagen Trial. Having done so, Mr. Anush
Agarwalla cannot subsequently seek consideration of his PSG
score from CDI Hegan Trial. A valid MER can be achieved only
upon participation in all three (3) prescribed tests, and a rider
cannot seek consideration of the score in one test after abandoning
the remaining two.
21.6. At CDI Hegan Trial, Mr. Anush Agarwalla declared only
Intermediate-I participation. However, against the Intermediate-I
test, the remark is “ Withdrawn ”. Once a rider withdraws and does
not participate in the entire competition, the rider is not entitled to
have that competition considered as one of the trial results. A valid
MER can be achieved only upon participation in all three (3)
prescribed tests.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 19 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
21.7. Mr. Anush Agarwalla seeks to rely upon his PSG score of
70.941% from CDI Hagen Trial even though the said score was
never declared within the prescribed 7-day period with the
Intermediate-I and Intermediate-I Freestyle scores from Lier Trial.
It is not the Appellant’s case that CDI Hagen Trial did not have all
three (3) tests. Therefore, Mr. Anush Agarwalla cannot selectively
rely upon the PSG score from CDI Hegan Trial. The learned
Single Judge has rightly observed that the only exception to
mandatory participation in all three (3) tests is contained in Clause
8(e) of the Selection criteria, which states that:
“ For riders based abroad, in case the competitions do not
have any of these three tests, they may participate in these
tests in other competitions on subsequent days to acquire
MERs for Team or Individual Category, with mandatory
prior intimation to EFI. For an Individual / Team selection,
a horse-rider combination shall attempt in three trials for
each Test in Small or Big tour to be conducted under the
aegis of the EFI in India and in FEI CDIs and CDIOs
competitions to be held abroad. ”
21.8. Thus, where a competition itself has PSG, Intermediate-I and
Intermediate-I Freestyle tests, participation in all three (3) tests is
mandatory. Clause 8(e) of the Selection Criteria applies only
where the qualifying competition itself does not contain all three
(3) prescribed tests. CDI Hagen Trial had all three (3) tests. Mr.
Anush Agarwalla voluntarily did not participate in Intermediate-I
and Intermediate-I Freestyle and, therefore, cannot rely upon the
exception under Clause 8(e) of the Selection Criteria. Mr. Anush
Agarwalla’s explanation that the horse had suffered a cut in its
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 20 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
mouth is also untenable as the FEI Rules provide that “ Fresh blood
anywhere on the horse, or in its mouth or spur area, during or
after the test, results in elimination. ”
21.9. The requirement that at least one (1) MER be achieved during the
period from 17.04.2026 to 15.06.2026 was introduced to ensure
that only those horse-rider combinations demonstrating current
form, fitness and competitive readiness were considered for final
selection. Having regard to the timelines prescribed for the Asian
Games, the Ad-Hoc Committee of EFI and the Selection
Committee ensured compliance with the said requirement by
insisting upon one (1) MER during the aforesaid period.
21.10. The Amendment was issued after due consideration of
representations received from riders across different disciplines.
The Preamble to the Amendment itself records that the same was
issued keeping in view the competitive demands of the Asian
Games.
21.11. All six (6) selected horse-rider combinations were to remain
Probables until submission of the final entries. The designation
enabled the Selection Committee to assess fitness and address
contingencies, including replacement, before conclusion of the
Selection Process. The Selection Criteria did not require EFI to
conduct trials in India; the qualifying competitions themselves
constituted the relevant trials, and the scores obtained therein
formed the basis for determining merit. The requirement that one
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 21 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
of the two MERs fall between 17.04.2026 and 15.06.2026 was
intended to assess current form.
21.12. Clause 15(b) of the Selection Criteria was an enabling provision
intended to provide competitive exposure, maintain fitness and
form, and permit a final review of the Probables. It did not
contemplate a fresh Selection Process or fresh marking, but only a
review of the current fitness, form and competitive readiness of
the already selected Probables before finalisation of the Team.
21.13. Clause 15(b) of the Selection Criteria, being in the nature of a
training and review mechanism, must be read harmoniously with
Clause 5 of the Selection Criteria. Its object is to ensure that the
selected Probables remain fit and competitive before submission
of final entries. In the present case, the competitions held abroad
fulfilled that purpose.
21.14. The Selection Committee, being mindful that final entries were
due by 01.07.2026 and that the qualification period ended on
15.06.2026, concluded that no useful purpose would be served by
conducting any further trial.
21.15. Clause 5(a) of the Selection Criteria provided that comparative
merit shall be determined based on the best two (2) results in which
MERs were achieved within the prescribed limits. The Selection
Committee identified and reviewed the Probables in accordance
with the Selection Criteria and, thereafter, finalised the Team. It
was, therefore, submitted that EFI had complied with the Selection
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 22 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
Criteria in letter and spirit, and that the Appeals were devoid of
merit.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SELETION COMMITTEE
22. Col. Sandeep Dewan, in his capacity as the Chairperson of the Selection
Committee, appeared in person and made the following submissions:
22.1. The members of the Selection Committee have represented India
at international competitions and were themselves sportspersons
of standing. Since Mr. Anush Agarwalla had expressed concern
regarding the presence of Mr. Kapil Modi on the Selection
Committee, Col. Sandeep Dewan was requested to speak with Mr.
Anush Agarwalla and ascertain the precise nature of such concern.
22.2. Pursuant thereto, Col. Sandeep Dewan spoke with Mr. Anush
Agarwalla and clarified that Mr. Kapil Modi would not participate
in any decision-making process in which a conflict of interest
concerning Mr. Anush Agarwalla could arise. Mr. Anush
Agarwalla had subsequently placed selective extracts of private
WhatsApp communications on record in a manner suited to his
case. According to the Selection Committee, every action
undertaken by it was in conformity with both the letter and spirit
of the Selection Criteria, while keeping in mind the interests of the
riders as well as the horses.
22.3. EFI was facing financial constraints and was in the process of
revival after a difficult period. There were no financial resources
available to conduct further selection events, and no substantive
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 23 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
purpose would have been served by subjecting the riders to
another trial.
22.4. All riders had already participated in the competitions available to
them up to 15.06.2026, and some were required to return to India
for visa formalities. The horses had also entered their recovery and
preparation cycles. After an intensive competition schedule, the
trainers had advised that the horses should be rested and,
thereafter, gradually brought back through a structured build-up
programme leading to the Asian Games. The insertion of an
additional competition at that stage would have disrupted the
entire preparation cycle.
22.5. The deadline for submission of nominative entries was around
22.06.2026, by which date all six (6) probable combinations were
required to be entered. Consequently, the requisite formalities
were completed immediately after the meeting of the Selection
Committee. It was further submitted that the Sports Authority of
India (“ SAI ”) was approached for financial support with the
intention that, after finalisation of the Team, a training programme
in Europe would be organised for the selected riders including
Appellants sometime around mid-July. However, SAI informed
that no request for financial assistance could be processed unless
the definitive entries were first uploaded.
22.6. Accordingly, the entries were submitted to ensure that there is no
last-minute glitch. In any event, the Selection Committee has
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 24 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
strictly followed the Selection Criteria and there is no scope for
interference by this Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF MINISTRY:
23. Mr. Udit Dedhiya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Ministry,
submitted that, subject to any directions issued by this Court, the Ministry
would be willing to render assistance in relation to the technical assessment
of the proper implementation of the Selection Criteria by facilitating an
examination through an independent expert body constituted by the Ministry,
so as to ascertain whether the merit list has been prepared in accordance with
the Selection Criteria.
24. The Ministry possesses neither the authority nor the technical expertise
to determine whether a particular Selection Criterion is appropriate or whether
an alternative criterion would have been preferable. The role of the Ministry
is confined to ensuring that EFI functions in accordance with law.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF IOA:
25. Ms. Geetika Vyas, learned Counsel for IOA submitted that IAO has no
authority or expertise to conduct the selection being the apex Olympic body
and it is left to the NSF to select the athletes in accordance with the Selection
Criteria.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SELECTED RIDERS:
26. Mr. Kirat Singh Nagra and Mr. Shiv Verma, learned Counsel for the
selected riders made the following submissions:
26.1. The Preamble to the Amendment to Section Criteria records that
it was issued in exercise of the powers reserved under Clauses
15(f) and 19(b) of the Selection Criteria, which permit EFI to
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 25 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
amend the Selection Criteria in compelling circumstances. The
Amendment was intended to supplement, clarify and amend the
Selection Criteria, and to align the process with the competitive
requirements of the Asian Games. It also sought to validate recent
performance by requiring at least one MER during the Peak-
window, remove ambiguity, preserve a strict merit-based
Selection Process and provide athletes with a wider opportunity to
qualify within the available timeframe.
26.2. The amendment to Clause 5 of the Selection Criteria permitted
each horse-rider combination to compete in up to four (4)
nominated qualifying competitions during the MER window. For
determining comparative merit, only the best two (2) results in
which MERs were achieved within the prescribed limits were to
be considered, provided that at least one (1) such MER was
achieved between 17.04.2026 and 15.06.2026. This mandatory
requirement was intended to ensure that only combinations
demonstrating current form, fitness and competitive readiness
were considered for final selection.
26.3. The Amendment also substituted Clause 8(d) of the Selection
Criteria, making participation in, and achievement of the
prescribed qualification scores across, all three tests, namely PSG,
Intermediate-I and Intermediate-I Freestyle, mandatory.
Accordingly, a valid MER could not be constituted by selectively
relying upon scores obtained in different competitions, unless
expressly permitted under the Selection Criteria.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 26 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
26.4. The Writ Petitions themselves reveal inconsistent interpretations
of the Selection Criteria. While one Appellant seeks to combine
scores from different competitions, the other contends that only
the PSG score should determine comparative merit. According to
the selected candidates, such disputed and divergent
interpretations are not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction
as it involves disputed questions of fact.
26.5. The qualifying window, originally fixed from 15.11.2025 to
14.06.2026, was extended by the Amendment till 15.06.2026.
Within this period, riders were required to attain the prescribed
MERs, after which the order of merit was to be prepared under
Clause 13, followed by the process contemplated under Clause 15
of the Selection Criteria.
26.6. Clause 15(b) of the Selection Criteria and the concept of
“ Probables ” must be understood in the context of competitive
sport. Selected riders are ordinarily designated as Probables until
final entries are submitted, so that unforeseen contingencies,
including injury to a horse or rider, may be addressed.
26.7. The designation does not confer any vested right or require
repeated trials after merit has already been determined under
Clause 13 of the Selection Criteria. Once the qualification window
closes and the merit list is prepared under the Selection Criteria,
the relative order of merit cannot be reopened, as doing so would
undermine the purpose of the Selection Criteria and disrupt
preparation for the Games.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 27 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF MR. ANUSH
AGARWALLA
27. Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Anush Agarwalla,
made the following rejoinder submissions:
27.1. Clauses 13(a) to 13(g) of the Selection Criteria deal with the order
of merit. Clause 13(i) provides that six (6) riders, including the
reserves, are to be selected to undergo training under the aegis of
EFI. These riders are then prepared for the Games, subject always
to the availability and fitness of their horses. Clause 15(b) of the
Selection Criteria refers to riders selected as ‘Probables’ and
further provides that “ ...to participate in competitions at venues to
be decided and facilitated by the EFI... ”
27.2. At the time of the 2023 Asian Games, when the qualifying window
was also approximately six months, EFI had organised common
competitions for all Probables before finalisation of the Team.
Those competitions were intended to ensure that all Probables
competed together under similar conditions and not to prepare a
fresh merit list.
27.3. As regards splitting competitions, the records themselves
demonstrate the position wherein on 26.05.2026, Mr. Anush
Agarwalla wrote that his horse had performed at CDI Hagen Trial,
secured the requisite score about 70% for the Team MER in the
PSG and further informed EFI that he would thereafter participate
in the remaining two (2) tests Intermediate I and Intermediate I
Freestyle at the next competition. The reply received from EFI was
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 28 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
that “ Ok so you will do the other 2 tests required to complete this
MER in another venue ” There was no insistence whatsoever that
those two (2) remaining tests had to be completed at the same
venue. However, the contention raised on behalf of the
Respondents that one cannot take the PSG score from CDI Hagen
Trial and the Intermediate I and Intermediate Freestyle scores from
Lier Trial is directly contrary to what EFI itself had communicated
at the relevant time.
27.4. The Amendment was issued after Mr. Anush Agarwalla had
already planned his competition calendar based on the earlier
Selection Criteria. On the very same day, he informed EFI that,
because of the Amendment, compliance with the 7-day declaration
requirement had become impossible before the next competition.
Therefore, the difficulty arose solely on account of the timing of
the Amendment.
27.5. Mr. Anush Agarwalla informed EFI that he intended to rely upon
PSG from CDI Hagen Trial together with the Intermediate I and
Intermediate I Freestyle scores from Lier Trial. Thereafter, a
member of the Selection Committee informed Mr. Anush
Agarwalla that he could proceed in that manner. However, in the
final results those scores were not considered.
27.6. The 7-day Rule was relaxed in the cases of Shruti Vora and Jai
Sud because it did not affect them in the same manner. One of
them competed almost a month later in May. The other competed
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 29 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
in June, almost two months later. Therefore, the 7-day requirement
posed no difficulty for them.
REJIONDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF MS. SUDIPTI
HAJELA
28. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned Senior Counsel for Ms. Sudipti Hajela
submitted that:
28.1. As per the message from the Chairperson of the Selection
Committee addressed to Ms. Sudipti Hajela’s father clearly stated
that “ Everything depends completely on her two best MER from 4
MER opportunities... ”. EFI told every rider that this would be the
basis on which the Indian team would be selected. However, the
Selection Committee did not follow the process that was explained
by the Chairperson of the Selection Committee.
28.2. EFI specifically stated how the Team MER would be calculated,
namely by obtaining 66% together with participation in the
remaining tests. EFI first represented that the team would be
selected based on the Team MER, and after every rider acted upon
that representation, EFI now seeks to adopt a completely different
interpretation.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
29. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants
and learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents and have perused the
material placed on record.
30. At the outset, we are not dealing with the allegations of bias and conflict
of interest against Mr. Kapil Modi and certain members of the Ad-Hoc
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 30 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
Committee as well as the Selection Committee as we do not consider it
necessary to examine those allegations, especially when the persons against
whom such bias and / or conflict of interest has been alleged have not been
joined as Respondents in their individual capacity.
31. The controversy in the present Appeals is confined to the issue as to
whether the Selection List was prepared in conformity with the Selection
Criteria. The principal question, therefore, which arises for consideration is
whether EFI adhered to the Selection Criteria while preparing the Selection
List.
32. It is well settled that Courts do not sit in appeal over the decisions of
selection committees, nor do they reassess the relative merits of candidates.
The determination as to who should represent the country in an international
sporting event is ordinarily best left to experts in the field. In matters
concerning selection for international competitive events, the Court would not
ordinarily interfere with the selection criteria framed by the concerned expert
body, or with the manner in which relative merit is evaluated, unless the
decision is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, perverse or contrary to law.
33. The Appellants contend that the Selection List has not been prepared in
accordance with the Selection Criteria. According to the Appellants, the
Selection Criteria contemplated a two-stage process: first, preparation of the
order of merit based on valid MERs and, thereafter, finalisation of the Team
from amongst the list of Probables. It was submitted on behalf of the
Appellants that EFI failed to comply with Clause 15(b) of the Selection
Criteria, which required selected Probables to participate in competitions at
venues to be decided and facilitated by EFI, for providing competitive
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 31 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
exposure, maintaining fitness and form, and enabling the Selection
Committee to take a final call on the final order of merit on the basis of which
the Team would be finalised.
34. It was, therefore, urged on behalf of the Appellants that in the absence
of compliance with Clause 15(b) of the Selection Criteria, the Selection List
was contrary to the Selection Criteria and liable to be set aside.
35. The Appellants further submitted that no competition was held during
the Training Period contemplated under Clause 15(b) of the Selection Criteria,
although such competitions were intended to enable the Selection Committee
to determine the final order of merit before finalising the Team. It was
contended on behalf of the Appellants that EFI submitted the final entries
without undertaking the process contemplated under Clause 15(b) of the
Selection Criteria, thereby acting in derogation of the Selection Criteria, and
that the learned Single Judge erred in upholding the Selection List.
36. Per contra , it was submitted on behalf of EFI that Clause 15(b) of the
Selection Criteria operates only after six (6) Probables have been selected on
the basis of the order of merit prepared under Clause 13 of the Selection
Criteria. The competitions contemplated during the Training Period were not
mandatory and were intended only to maintain the current form, fitness and
competitive readiness of the selected Probables. Clause 15(b) of Selection
Criteria did not contemplate a fresh Selection Process or fresh marking after
the Probables have been selected in terms of Clause 13 of the Selection
Criteria.
37. To consider the rival submissions, it is apposite to reproduce Clause 15
(a) and 15 (b) of the Selection Criteria as under:
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 32 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
“ 15. Selection of Final Teams for 20th Asian Games 2026
(a) Selection is Provisional. All selected combinations in all the
disciplines will be considered as ‘Probables’ till the EFI, in
consultation with Selection Committee and coaches for each
discipline, again reviews the entire selection process before
submission of final entry for Asian Games. Fitness of riders and
horses, suitability of horse-rider combinations, performance during
coaching camps and merit ascertained from competitive exposures
will be of paramount importance and will be taken into consideration
for final selection of teams / individuals in order to ensure that the
best are selected to win medals for the country.
(b) Competitions during Training Period. Horse-rider combinations
selected as ‘Probables’ will be required to participate in competitions
at venues to be decided and facilitated by the EFI to provide necessary
competitive exposure, ensure maintenance of fitness, form and to
enable the Selection Committee to take a call on the final order of
merit, based on which, the teams for the three disciplines will be
finalized. ”
38. The aforesaid provisions of the Selection Criteria make it evident that,
upon preparation of the order of merit of the Probables, the subsequent stage
is the selection of the Final Team in the manner contemplated under Clause
15(b) thereof. In the present case, it is apparent that the Selection Committee
did not undertake the process prescribed for selection of the Final Team in
terms of the provision contained in Clause 15(b).
39. Further, EFI did not comply with the requirement under Clause 8(f) of
the Selection Criteria, inasmuch as no Provisional Merit List of six (6)
Probables was published, from which the final Team and / or Individual
nominations were to be confirmed.
40. It is also material to note that EFI appears to have proceeded with
considerable haste by uploading the Definitive Entries on the FEI website on
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 33 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
19.06.2026 at 9:27 AM and, thereafter, communicating the same to the IOA
at 4:37 PM, despite the fact that the time for submission was available until
01.07.2026.
41. Under this circumstance, EFI appears to have acted with undue haste
without complying with the procedure required to be followed for preparation
of the Selection List. The reasons advanced by EFI for non-compliance with
the mandatory requirements of the Selection Criteria are, firstly , paucity of
time, having regard to the limited window available for participation in
qualifying events and selection of the Probables, and secondly , the futility of
conducting an inter se competition amongst the six (6) Probables, since the
Amendment to the Selection Criteria had introduced validation of recent
performance by requiring at least one (1) MER during the Peak-window
between 17.04.2026 and 15.06.2026 thereby objective of assessing the current
fitness and form of the Probables stood substantially achieved.
42. The aforesaid reasons do not inspire confidence as when the
Amendment was introduced, EFI was fully aware of the existing requirements
under Clauses 15(a) and 15(b) of the Selection Criteria; nevertheless, those
provisions were not modified. Further, when the list of Probables was
prepared on 16.06.2026, the Ad-Hoc Committee was also aware of Clause
15(f), which empowered EFI to amend the Selection Criteria in compelling
circumstances. However, the said power was not invoked. In any event,
Clause 15(f) merely confers a power to amend the Selection Criteria and does
not empower EFI to dispense with compliance therewith.
43. Therefore, the reliance on Clause 15(f) of the Selection Criteria
empowering EFI to amend the Selection Criteria in compelling circumstances
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 34 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
seems to be misplaced especially when there is no record to indicate that
Clause 15(f) of the Selection Criteria was invoked by EFI for dispensing with
competitions during the Training Period or for treating the order of merit of
the Probables as the final Team list.
44. Though, the non-compliance with Clauses 15(a) and 15(b) of the
Selection Criteria has not been satisfactorily justified by EFI, the question is
whether, in the absence of competitions during the Training Period, the final
order of merit submitted by EFI, whereby the Appellants were placed in the
Reserve List, is liable to be set aside at this advanced stage.
45. Ideally, the list of Probables ought to have been prepared sufficiently
in advance to enable competitions to be conducted during the Training Period
and to permit the Selection Committee to take a final call on the Team in terms
of Clauses 15(a) and 15(b) of the Selection Criteria. However, since EFI has
finalised the list of Probables only on 16.06.2026, after the window for
participating in eligible competitions had closed on 15.06.2026, there is
insufficient time available now to conduct any further competition as
contemplated under Clause 15(b) of the Selection Criteria.
46. As the Appellants have challenged neither the Selection Criteria nor the
Amendment thereto and, if fact, have taken benefit of the Amendment, the
timing of preparation of the list of Probables on 16.06.2026 is not open to
challenge at this stage. Further, list of merit of Probables was prepared based
on valid MERs achieved by the horse-rider combinations, including at least
one competition undertaken during the Peak-window between 17.04.2026 and
15.06.2026 which is as per Clause 13 of the Selection Criteria.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 35 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
47. It is also undisputed that the selected candidates placed at Rank Nos. 1,
2 and 3 had attained Individual MERs. Clause 13(g) of the Selection Criteria
expressly provides that while considering the composition of the Team, all
combinations which have attained MERs in the Individual category shall be
placed higher in merit than those which have attained MERs only in the Team
category.
48. The contention of the Appellants that Mr. Hriday Chheda could not
have been ranked above Mr. Anush Agarwalla, both having attained two (2)
valid Team MER, also does not appeal to us. Mr. Hriday Chheda secured
Team MER at Goscieszow with scores of 66.814%, 68.971% and 71.617%,
and at Verolanova with scores of 68.333%, 66.912% and 72.892%. Mr. Anush
Agarwalla secured Team MERs at Tolbert with scores of 68.725%, 65.735%
and 69.600%, and at Lier with scores of 67.294%, 68.824% and 69.580%.
Clauses 8(f) and 13(g) of the Selection Criteria provide that, while deciding
the order of merit for Dressage, the best two (2) valid results from MER-level
competitions shall be taken into account, riders shall be ranked on the basis
of the highest cumulative percentage scores across these two (2) results, and
comparison shall first be made between combinations which have achieved
two (2) MERs.
49. Since the Appellants and Mr. Hriday Chheda had achieved two (2)
valid Team MERs, as per Clauses 8(f) and 13(d) of the Selection Criteria,
their relative merit shall be decided on the basis of aggregate scores of the
Team MERs. Mr. Hriday Chheda has, therefore, rightly been placed above
Mr. Anush Agarwalla in the order of merit. The challenge to Mr. Hriday
Chheda’s placement is, accordingly, without merit.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 36 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
50. Further, the submission of Mr. Anush Agarwalla that only PSG score
was relevant as per the Selection Criteria for the selection in the Team as
minimum 66% score was required to be achieved for the PSG test and
participation in Intermediate-I and Intermediate-I Freestyle, is not in
consonance with the Selection Criteria, which provided that all three (3) tests
have to be taken into consideration for determining the MER. Therefore,
consideration of only the PSG score for the Team selection cannot be
accepted.
51. It was further submitted on behalf of Mr. Anush Agarwalla that if the
best two (2) PSG scores of all the riders are taken into consideration, Mr.
Anush Agarwalla would be either at Rank 2 or Rank 3 depending on
consideration of CDI Hagen Trial, which was not considered by the Selection
Committee by citing non-compliance with the 7-day Rule for intimating EFI
by Mr. Anush Agarwalla. It is the case of Mr. Anush Agarwalla that the 7-
day Rule could not have been followed on account of the Amendment
introduced to the Selection Criteria on 17.04.2026 and, therefore, there was
no sufficient time left to inform about the participation in CDI Hagen Trial,
which was conducted from 22.04.2026 to 26.04.2026. Mr. Anush Agarwalla
cannot gain any benefit of this argument as he did not participate in all the
three (3) tests held at CDI Hagen Trial due to admitted injury near his horse’s
mouth. Accordingly, CDI Hagen Trial was rightly not considered by the
Selection Committee.
52. We also find merit in the submission of EFI that the rider cannot pick
and choose the scores from different events, and a valid MER can be
considered only if the rider has participated in all the three (3) tests in a single
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 37 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
event unless that event did not have any of the tests contemplated fulfillment
of MER. As CDI Hagen Trial had all three (3) tests available and it is only
because Mr. Anush Agarwalla could not participate due to cut near the mouth
of his horse, the same cannot be considered for determining valid MER.
53. The reliance placed by Mr. Anush Agarwalla on the messages
exchanged between him and the Chairperson of the Selection Committee
cannot be relied upon as the assurance given by any member of the Selection
Committee cannot change the Selection Criteria. Therefore, the Selection List
can only be prepared based on the Selection Criteria, which was done in the
present case.
54. The submission on behalf of Ms. Sudipti Hajela that only MER scores
can be considered to determine the order of merit between the players who do
not have individual MER and as Ms. Sudipti Hajela has second highest
cumulative Team MER score, she ought to have been placed at Rank 4 above
Mr. Hriday Chheda also cannot be accepted as the relative merit of the riders
under the same category of MER has to be determined on the basis of
aggregate of the scores for all the three (3) tests of their respective valid
MERs. Since Mr. Hriday Chheda and Ms. Sudipti Hajela had attained the
same category of MER, Mr. Hriday Chheda was placed higher on account of
his higher aggregate score of all three (3) tests as per Clause 13(d) of the
Selection Criteria, which provided that, for determining the order of merit
amongst Probables having the same number of MERs, their relative merit
would be decided based on the aggregate scores, and the rider with the higher
cumulative score would be placed above the others.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 38 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36
55. Accordingly, while we do not find any infirmity in the preparation of
the list of Probables in terms of Clause 13 of the Selection Criteria, we are of
the view that the requirements prescribed under Clauses 15(a) and 15(b) of
the Selection Criteria were not duly complied with.
56. Having regard to the deadline of 15.07.2026, it is logistically
impracticable to conduct a further competition within the time available,
particularly since the riders and horses are located at different places across
the globe and transporting horses from different locations to a common venue
for conducting a competition amongst all six (6) Probables would not be
possible in such a short span of time.
57. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case and considering the limited time available before the deadline of
15.07.2026, we are constrained to refrain from interfering with the Impugned
Judgment. Such restraint is warranted in the larger interest of the sport and to
avoid any adverse impact on the prospects of the Indian Team participating in
the Dressage Event at the Asian Games.
58. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Appeals are disposed of
without interference with the Impugned Judgment, with direction to EFI to
strictly comply with the Selection Criteria henceforth.
59. Accordingly, the present Appeals along with pending applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
JULY 06, 2026/ AK/HK/sms
Signature Not Verified
LPA 458/2026 & LPA 459/2026 Page 39 of 39
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:06.07.2026
20:36