Anush Agarwalla vs Ad-Hoc Committee For Governance Of Equestrian Federation Of India & Ors.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 25 June, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 29 June, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 8329/2026, CM APPL. 39218/2026 & CM APPL.
39219/2026

SUDIPTI HAJELA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Kritika Gupta, Mr. Mohit Kumar
Sharma, Mr. Maulik Khurana, Mr.
Ritwik Saha, Advs. along with
Petitioner in person (Through VC)
Mob: 8750763200
Email:
[email protected]
versus

EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kapil Modi, Mr. Rishabh Parikh
and Ms. Niyati Kohli, Advocates for
R-1 & 2
Mob: 9818690207
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Udit Dedhiya, SPC with Ms.
Apurva Sachdev, Mr. Preyansh
Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Varun
Malik, GP for R-4.
Mob: 9619444355
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Shiv Verma, Adv. for newly
impleaded respondent nos. 4 to 6
Mr. Kirat Singh Nagra, Adv. for
respondent no. 3/Hriday Chheda.
Ms. Geetika Vyas, Adv. for IOA
Email: [email protected]
Mob: 9899594650
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 1 of 30

+ W.P.(C) 8290/2026, CM APPL. 39120/2026 & CM APPL.
39121/2026
ANUSH AGARWALLA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Anju
Thomas, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Ms.
Pratibha Yadav and Mr. Bhanu
Mishra, Advocates.
Mob: 9811788754
Email: [email protected]
versus

AD-HOC COMMITTEE FOR GOVERNANCE OF EQUESTRIAN
FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kapil Modi, Mr. Rishabh Parikh
and Ms. Niyati Kohli, Advocates for
R-1 & 2
Mob: 9818690207
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Udit Dedhiya, SPC with Ms.
Apurva Sachdev, Mr. Preyansh
Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Varun
Malik, GP for R-4.
Mob: 9619444355
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Shiv Verma, Advocate for R-5, 6
& 7.
Mr. Kartik Yadav and Ms. Sumedha
Chadha, Adv. for R-8
Mr. Kirat Singh Nagra, Adv. for
respondent/Hriday Chheda.
Ms. Geetika Vyas, Adv. for IOA
Email: [email protected]
Mob: 9899594650


W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 2 of 30

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
JUDGMENT
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
1. The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the selection
process carried out by the respondents, in bringing out the selection list
th
dated 16 June, 2026 issued by the respondent no. 1, i.e., Ad-hoc Committee
of Equestrian Federation of India ( “EFI” ) for participation in Equestrian
Discipline of Dressage in the upcoming Asian Games to be held in Japan
th th
from 19 September, 2026 to 04 October, 2026. The EFI is the National
Sports Federation for Equestrian Sports in India, recognised by the Ministry
of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India, the Indian Olympic
Association ( “IOA” ) and the Federation Equestre Internationale ( “FEI” ).
2. As per the selection list, six sports persons have been chosen for
participation in the Asian Games, 2026 in the discipline of Dressage, with
both the petitioners having been kept in the Reserve List. While the
petitioner in W.P.(C) 8290/2026 has been selected as Reserve no. 1, the
petitioner in W.P.(C) 8329/2026, has been selected as Reserve no. 2. Both
the petitioners seek directions to set aside the impugned selection list dated
th
16 June, 2026, and seek their inclusion in the final selection list for the
Asian Games, wherein, four sports persons have been selected, and placed
above the present petitioners, who have been kept only as Reserves.
3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 8290/2026 seeks that his score for the event
nd th
held in Hagen, Germany from 22 April, 2026 to 26 April, 2026 for Prix
St. Georges ( “PSG” ) be taken for the purpose of calculation of his
Minimum Eligibility Requirement ( “MER” ), which if taken, would place
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 3 of 30

the petitioner in the top four athletes in the selection list, thereby, making
him eligible for participation in the upcoming Asian Games. He further
alleges bias in the selection on account of Mr. Kapil Modi being part of the
Selection team, since there are litigations pending between the petitioner/his
parents with Mr. Kapil Modi.
4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 8329/2026 has challenged the decision-
making process for the selection, and also prays for quashing of the selection
th
list notified by respondent no. 1 on 16 June, 2026 for the Indian Dressage
th
Team for the 20 Asian Games, 2026. The said petitioner seeks redrawing
of the selection list on the ground that the process followed by the
respondents for taking the MERs is flawed, as Team MERs had to be taken
for the purpose of awarding ranks to different sports persons, and only after
that, individual scores of the respective sports persons were to be
considered. Therefore, error has been committed by the respondent no.
1/EFI by taking into consideration the individual MERs/scores of the
respective sports persons for the purpose of ranking them and selecting the
sports persons on the said basis. Thus, as per the petitioner in W.P.(C)
8329/2026, the respondents have prepared the selection list by taking into
consideration, performances which do not constitute validly achieved
MERs.
5. The present petitions concern the selection of the Indian Dressage
th
Team for participation in the 20 Asian Games, scheduled to be held in
th th
Japan from 19 September, 2026 to 04 October, 2026. The Dressage Event
consists of three tests, i.e., PSG, Intermediate I and Intermediate I Freestyle.
Scores in all the three tests are considered as one MER. In case of riders
living abroad, if an event does not have all the three tests, then, such riders
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 4 of 30

may participate in these tests in other competitions to acquire the MERs.
6. The entire selection framework for selecting the members of the team
for the Dressage Event is prescribed in the Selection Criteria Version 4.0
( “Selection Criteria” ) issued by the EFI which prescribes the MERs and
technical standards required for participation in Dressage Event. Certain
th
amendments were carried out in the said Selection Criteria on 17 April,
2026.
7. As per the Selection Criteria, the Dressage Riders were required to
achieve the prescribed MERs through participation in recognized
competitions. The Selection Criteria provides that horse-rider combinations
would be evaluated on the basis of their best two valid MER results. Further,
riders would be ranked based on the highest cumulative percentage scores
achieved across such results.
8. The Dressage Event at Asian Games pertains to small tour team
th
selection. The relevant clauses of the Selection Criteria, as amended on 17
April, 2026, are as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx

3. Events, Team Composition & Entries The events shall consist of both
Team and Individual competitions across all three discipline viz Dressage,
th
Show Jumping and Eventing at the 20 Asian Games, scheduled to be held
in Aichi-Nagoya, Japan, from 19 Sep to 04 Oct 2026, subject to
confirmation by the Aichi-Nagoya Asian Games Organising Committee
(AINAGOC):-

(a) Team sizes shall be limited to a maximum of four (4) riders
per discipline, of whom three (3) will compete for the team score
and the fourth shall serve as the drop score, in accordance with
the quotas prescribed by the OC and the applicable FEI rules.

(b) Entries may be made either for teams or where it is not feasible
to constitute a full team, as eligible individual entries, strictly
subject to the entry quotas and conditions laid down by the AGOC
and the FEI.

W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 5 of 30

4. Qualifying Window & Structure

(a) The qualifying window for selection trials shall be from 15
Nov 2025 to 15 June 2026. The cut-off date (15th June 2026) is set
to accommodate veterinary protocols, logistical movements, any
training camps, pre-export/import quarantine, other
logistics/administrative requirements prior to the Asian Games cut
- off date for definitive entries and the cut - off date of the Indian
Olympic Association ( “IOA” ).

(b) Competition Structure: 20th Asian Games-2026, AICHI-
NAGOYA, JAPAN is based on the technical standards of Dressage,
Show Jumping and Eventing as given below: -

th
(i) Dressage. Competition overview in 20 Asian Games
2026: - The team and the individual competitions will be
held in a mixed format competition
xxx xxx xxx
(ab) Small tour tests:

• Team Competition & 1st Individual Qualifier
Competition: FEI Prix St Georges
• 2nd Individual Qualifier Competition: FEI
Intermediate I
• Individual Final Competition: FEI Intermediate I
Freestyle.
xxx xxx xxx

5. Attempts, Timelines & Communication

(a) Attempts- A horse–rider combination may compete in up to
four (04) nominated qualifying competitions during the MER
window, in each particular discipline separately (Dressage, Show
Jumping and Eventing) unless otherwise specifically provided .

For the purposes of determination of comparative merit, only the
best two (02) results in which MERs have been achieved within
the prescribed limits shall be considered. It is further clarified
that, out of the MERs considered for merit, at least one (01) MER
must have been achieved within the period 17 April 2026 to 15
June 2026, failing which the combination shall not be eligible for
selection. This requirement is mandatory and non-negotiable and
is intended to ensure that only those horse–rider combinations
demonstrating current form, fitness, soundness, and competitive
readiness are considered for final selection.


(b) Selection Procedure
(i) Up to six (6) riders, to be called Probables, shall be shortlisted
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 6 of 30

per discipline (Dressage, Show Jumping, and Eventing) on the
basis of comparative merit of each horse–rider combination. To be
eligible for inclusion in the list of probables, a combination must
achieve at least one (1) valid MER within the prescribed limits,
and a minimum of one (01) attempt out of three (3) competitions is
compulsory.

(ii) In Dressage, the highest cumulative score will decide merit
and in Jumping and Eventing, the combinations with the least
cumulative penalties across two (02) MER results shall be
considered as probables.

(iii) These six probables in each discipline shall be shortlisted
based on MER/Results in selection trials, the three/four riders with
the leading scores (highest in Dressage, lowest penalties in Show
Jumping, and least cumulative penalties in Eventing) shall be
selected as the final Team India nominees for each discipline based
on the merit.

xxx xxx xxx

8. Dressage (Team & Individual) Discipline Specific
Prerequisites/Technical Standards for Selection Qualifiers/ Trials in India
and abroad.

xxx xxx xxx

(b) Minimum Eligibility Requirements(MER) of FEI : All participants
must achieve the following qualifying result (MER) of FEI between 01 Jan
2025 and the deadline for submission of Nomination Entries, which is 15
June 2026 . At that time, Certificates of Capability must also be submitted
along with the Entries.

xxx xxx xxx

(ii) For Small tour level : In order to qualify for participation at
the 2026 Asian Games, Athletes and Horses must have attained (as
a combination) a result of at least 62% attributed by the Ground
Jury in a Prix St. Georges and/or Intermediate I at two different
CDI1 or CDIO1 events, from 1st January 2025 until the date of
nominated entries (deadline is 15 June 2026 as per requirement
of IOA).


(c) Team composition:- The team must be composed of at least 1 (one)
Small Tour Athlete-Horse combination and up to 2 (two) Big Tour Athlete-
Horse combinations.

(d) Dressage – EFI- Minimum Eligibility Requirement (MER) as per
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 7 of 30

Selection Criteria

(i) Mandatory Completion of All Three Tests:

The requirement of participation in, and achievement of the prescribed
qualification scores across, all three tests shall be mandatory and shall
be interpreted strictly, both in letter and in spirit.

(i) A horse–rider combination shall be deemed to have achieved one (01)
valid Minimum Eligibility Requirement (MER) (for Team and/or
Individual consideration) only upon mandatory participation in all three
prescribed tests, namely:
• Prix St. Georges (PSG) / Grand Prix (as applicable),
• Intermediate I / Grand Prix Special, and
• Intermediate I Freestyle / Grand Prix Freestyle.

(ii) Each of the above tests must independently meet the prescribed
qualification benchmarks , wherever applicable, in accordance with
Version 4.0 of the Selection Criteria.

(iii) No exemption, relaxation, or deviation from the above requirements
shall be permitted under any circumstances.

th
(iv) This requirement is introduced in recognition of the 20 Asian Games
2026 competition format, which mandates performance across all three
tests, and is intended to ensure that only those horse–rider combinations
demonstrating complete competitive preparedness at the international
level are considered for selection.

(ii) Selection for Dressage Team

(aa) A team shall consist of three/four athlete–horse combinations,
including at least one (1) Small Tour and up to two (02) Big Tour
combinations. If four riders are allowed by the Organising
Committee/FEI, the best three (03) scores will count.

(ab) EFI MERs for Team – EFI MERS for selection of Team are
as under:-

Small Tour Tests
• Team Competition & 1st Individual Qualifier Competition:
✓ FEI Prix St Georges: 66%
• 2nd Individual Qualifier Competition:
• FEI Intermediate-I: Participate
• Individual Final Competition:
✓ FEI Intermediate I Freestyle: Participate
xxx xxx xxx

(iii) Selection for Dressage Individual
(ab) Individual nominations shall be made only if a team cannot be
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 8 of 30

constituted . In that case, EFI may nominate up to two (2)
individual combinations (either Small Tour or Big Tour) who have
achieved the FEI MERs(CoC) and the EFI MER for selection
(ac) EFI MERs for Individual – EFI MERs for selection of
Individual entries are as under:-

Small Tour Tests
• Team Competition & 1st Individual Qualifier Competition:
✓ FEI Prix St Georges: Participate (Subject to obtaining
FEI MER i.e. CoC)
• 2nd Individual Qualifier Competition:
✓ FEI Intermediate-I: 69%
• Individual Final Competition:
✓ FEI Intermediate I Freestyle: 69%
xxx xxx xxx

(e) 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
in subsequent days to acquire MERs for the Team or Individual
categories 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.

(f) Merit Calculation Only horse-rider combinations that meet the FEI
MERs(CoC) and EFI selection criteria MERs will be considered for
selection. For comparative merit, the best two valid results from MER
level competitions will be taken into account. Riders will be ranked on the
basis of the highest cumulative percentage scores across these two results.
The comparison will first be made between those combinations who have
achieved two MERs, then those who have achieved only one MER each.
While considering the composition of the team, all combinations who
have attained MERs in Individual category will be placed higher in
merit over those who have attained MERs in the Team category only.
EFI will publish a Provisional Merit List of six (6) probables from which
the final Team and/or Individual nominations will be confirmed .

xxx xxx xxx


13. Order of Merit for Probables

(a) Only the horse-rider combinations that have achieved EFI MER as per
Selection Criteria laid down for the 20th Asian Games 2026 trials, will be
considered for selection.

(b) Only penalties/scores attained in trials in which the horse-rider
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 9 of 30

combinations have attained the best of two MERs will be considered to
arrive at the order of merit. At least One(01) MER should have been
acquired mandatorily in the new set of trials to be held during the period
from 15 Nov 2025 to 14 June 2026 . (refer to Selection criteria as per each
discipline above)

(c) If the horse selected in a horse-rider combination becomes unsound
after selection for any reason, the combination standing next in merit will
take its place. The original rider may not claim the same position in the
list on a different horse unless that combination happens to be next in the
order of merit on the list.

(d) Amongst riders having the same number of MERs, their relative merits
will be decided based on the aggregate of scores / penalties. A rider with a
higher cumulative score for Dressage or a lesser cumulative penalty for
Show Jumping and Eventing, will be placed higher than the others. (ref. to
Selection criteria as per each discipline above)

(e) In the event of equality of MERs and scores in Dressage or penalties in
Eventing, the merit will be decided as per FEI Rules. In case of Show
Jumping, it will be decided on lesser cumulative penalties. In the event of
equality in the penalties, the speeds of the second round of jumping in
qualifying competitions (length of course divided by time taken) in which
MERs have been achieved will be considered. A horse-rider combination
with higher average speed will be placed higher in merit.

(f) While deciding the order of merit for Eventing, the comparison will
first be made between those combinations who have achieved two MERs,
then will come those who have achieved only one MER each.

(g) While deciding the order of Merit for Dressage, the best two valid
results from MER level competitions will be taken into account. Riders
will be ranked on the basis of the highest cumulative percentage scores
across these two results. The comparison will first be made between
those combinations who have achieved two MERs, then those who have
achieved only one MER each. While considering the composition of the
team, all combinations who have attained MERs in Individual category
will be placed higher in merit over those who have attained MERs in the
Team category only .

(h) While deciding the order of merit for Jumping the comparison will first
be made between those who have achieved two MERs at Individual Trial
format and they will be placed above others. Then the combinations who
have achieved two MERs at Team Trial formats will be compared and
placed in the merit. Then the combinations which have achieved only one
MER at Individual Trial format will be placed. In the end the
combinations who have achieved only one MER at Team Trial format will
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 10 of 30

be placed.

(i) Based on the order of merit, a team of six riders, including reserves as
set out above, will be selected for each discipline for further training
under the aegis of the EFI. These riders will be trained either in India or
abroad, subject to the availability of budget and such other conditions as
may be determined by the EFI.

xxx xxx xxx

th
15. Selection of Final Teams for 20 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 .

(c) Change of Horses. In case a rider attains MER on different horses,
only his/her top two horses shall be accepted in the list of six probable’s
as per merit list. A rider in the top four positions may, in consultation with
the coach, be allowed to switch his/her horse on which he/she has been
placed in the top five positions on two horses.

(d) Selection of Manager & Chef d’Equipe. Selection Committee will also
select the Manager and Chef d’ Equipe of the Indian Equestrian Team
based on competence, experience, exposure and knowledge of rules and
st
regulations of the sport by 31 March 2026. The nominated persons
should be in a position to meet the administrative/managerial
requirements of the Team. The manager is required to take on
responsibilities immediately on declaration of Probables so that the riders
and coaches are free to concentrate on training/competition. The manager
will be attached with the team from the day of declaration of Probables to
organize all administrative aspects right until the dispatch of the riders
th
and horses to their respective destinations on completion of the 20 Asian
Games 2026. The Chef d’ Equipe shall be responsible for overall
coordination between teams, NF and AINAGOC.

(e) Questions not Addressed/Unforeseen Matters Any matter that has not
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 11 of 30

been addressed in these criteria that may arise at any stage will be put up
to the Selection Committee for consideration. The decision taken
collectively by the Selection Committee and Executive Committee will be
considered final and binding.

(f) Rights to Make Amendments to the Selection Criteria. EFI reserves
all rights to make amendments to these Selection Criteria, should it
become necessary, to do so under compelling circumstances.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

9. Perusal of the aforesaid Selection Criteria brings forth the following:
I. Every horse-rider combination may participate in the prescribed
qualifying competitions and for determination of comparative merit,
the best two results out of four in which MERs have been achieved,
shall be considered.
II. At least one such MER must have been achieved within the period of
th th
17 April, 2026 to 15 June, 2026.
III. Only horse-rider combinations achieving the prescribed MERs shall
be eligible for consideration.
IV. All participants competing in the Dressage Discipline are required to
participate in all three tests of the small tour, i.e., PSG, Intermediate I
and Intermediate I Freestyle.
V. While considering the composition of the team, all combinations who
have achieved MERs in individual category will be placed higher in
merit over those who have achieved MERs in the team category only.
VI. Among riders having the same number of MERs, Individual MER
combinations rank above Team MER combinations.
VII. Among riders having the same number of MERs, their relative merits
will be decided based on the aggregate of scores.

VIII. While deciding the order of merit, the best two valid results from
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 12 of 30

MER level competitions will be taken into account.
IX. Riders will be ranked on the basis of the highest cumulative
percentage scores across the best two results. A rider with higher
cumulative score will be placed higher than the others.
X. Riders based abroad participating in selection trials must intimate the
EFI at least seven days prior to the date of first horse inspection for
each trial.
XI. For riders based abroad, in case the competitions do not have any of
the three tests, i.e., PSG, Intermediate I and Intermediate I Freestyle,
they may participate in these tests in other competitions in subsequent
days to acquire MERs for the team or individual categories, with
mandatory prior intimation to EFI.
10. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 8290/2026 seeks that the score achieved by
the petitioner for the test PSG in the event held at Hagen, Germany be taken
for the purpose of calculating MER, instead of the score for the test PSG
th
achieved by the petitioner in the event held at Lier, Belgium from 20 May,
th
2026 till 24 May, 2026. The chart as submitted by the petitioner for
calculation of his MERs, is reproduced as under:

W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 13 of 30

11. There is a fundamental error in the aforesaid submission of the
petitioner in W.P.(C) 8290/2026. As per the Selection Criteria as reproduced
hereinabove, for riders based abroad, in case the competitions do not have
the three tests, i.e., PSG, Intermediate I and Intermediate I Freestyle, they
may participate in these tests in other competitions in subsequent days to
acquire the MERs for the team or individual categories. However, as is clear
from the table hereinabove, the competition, in which the petitioner
participated in Belgium, had all the three tests. Thus, the petitioner cannot
seek that the PSG score of the event at Belgium be ignored, and PSG score
for Hagen, Germany be taken into account. Such interpretation as sought to
be given by the petitioner, is not in line with the intent and purport of the
Selection Criteria.
12. The contention of the petitioner that two other players, i.e., Ms. Shruti
Vora and Mr. Jai Sud, who have been selected for the Asian Games, 2026,
have been allowed to pick scores from different events, while denying the
said option to the petitioner in W.P.(C) 8290/2026 , is totally misplaced and
liable to be rejected.
13. The scores taken for Ms. Shruti Vora for the purpose of calculation of
MERs by taking scores from different events, is as follows:
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 14 of 30

14. Perusal of the aforesaid table shows that since the event at Hickstead,
United Kingdom (“UK”) had only the tests of PSG and Intermediate I
Freestyle, therefore, the score of Intermediate I from a subsequent event at
Wellington, UK has been taken for the purpose of calculating the MER. No
error is found in the said course of action, as the same has been done in
th
terms of Clause 8(e) of Selection Criteria, as amended on 17 April, 2026.
15. Similarly, the scores of Mr. Jai Sud as taken from different events, is
reflected in the table as below:

16. Perusal of the aforesaid table again shows that since the test of
Intermediate I Freestyle was not available in the event at Trial No. 3, the
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 15 of 30

scores of the said test have been taken from a subsequent event held at
Slovenia for the purpose of calculating the MER. The same has been done in
th
consonance with the Clause 8(e) of Selection Criteria, as amended on 17
April, 2026.
17. It is a settled proposition of law that a Court in its writ jurisdiction can
interfere only if a decision is illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety. The Court cannot substitute its decision over a decision of the
Expert Committee, except where the decision is shown to have been
exercised in an arbitrary or capricious or perverse manner or is contrary to
the settled principles of practices. It is only in cases where the selection
process is manifestly or prima facie arbitrary, that a Court may exercise its
discretion to interfere. Thus, this Court in the case of Swastika Ghosh
Versus Table Tennis Federation of India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine
Del 1817 , held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
10. It is a settled proposition that a mere mistake is not sufficient for
this Court to exercise powers under Article 226. A writ can be issued
only when there is something more than a mere error/mistake. The
court in its writ jurisdiction can interfere only if its decision is
illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or shocks the
conscience of the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or
moral standards. The court cannot clothe itself with the power to
make choice and should not substitute its decision over a decision of
an Expert Committee. It may be reiterated that the scope of judicial
review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and
not the decision.

xxx xxx xxx
13. This Court in Shumel v. Union of India [Shumel v. Union of
India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4706] has also inter alia held as under:

13. … How the relative merits of the different candidates should
be evaluated is not a matter for this Court to decide. That is best
left to the experts in a particular field of sport. Irrespective of
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 16 of 30

what may have been the past performance of a sportsperson, the
current consistent form of such sportsperson should be critical in
such decision-making given the objective of ensuring that the best
performing candidate should represent India at the CWG, 2010.
On an overall conspectus of what has transpired, this Court is not
able to conclude that the exclusion of the petitioner from the
selection trials for the 72 kg class women's wresting for the CWG,
2010 which is to take place on 7-8-2010 and 8-8-2010 is either
arbitrary or unreasonable.

14. In Sushil Kumar v. Union of India [Sushil Kumar v. Union of
India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3660], this Court inter alia held that a
writ court will not interfere in exercise of discretion of the National
Sports Federation and substitute its own judgment except where
discretion is shown to have been exercised in an arbitrary or
capricious or perverse manner or is contrary to settled principles of
practices. The court inter alia held that the decision, who should
represent India in a sporting event is best left to the experts i.e. the
National Sports Federation concerned. The judgment in Sushil
Kumar case [Sushil Kumar v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del
3660] was also followed by this Court in Karamjyoti v. Union of
India [Karamjyoti v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6766]
whereby it was inter alia held as under:

42. I am in complete agreement with the view taken in Sushil
Kumar case [Sushil Kumar v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine
Del 3660] that the decision, who should represent India in a
sporting event, is best left to the experts. In the matters of
selecting the best possible candidate to represent India in an
international competitive event, there cannot be any interference
by this Court in the selection criteria set down by the National
Sports Federation concerned and also as to how the relative
merits of the different candidates is to be evaluated, which is for
the experts to decide and not this Court.

15. In Paralympic Committee of India v. Naresh Kumar
Sharma [Paralympic Committee of India v. Naresh Kumar
Sharma, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8443] this Court has inter alia held
as under:

11. The purpose of preparing the above tabular chart is to
ascertain whether the Committee's process of selection is
manifestly or prima facie arbitrary. This Court recollects the
compass that it has to apply in such matters. It is beyond dispute
that in matters of policy decisions, the court should be
circumspect in interfering and must exercise its power of judicial
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 17 of 30

review only to prevent manifest arbitrary or mala fide action.
Beyond this narrow scope of enquiry, courts do not possess the
ability or the wherewithal to “second-guess” policy decisions
made by specialised bodies tasked with that purpose. Specifically,
in the context of selection of athletes for sporting events, this
Court in previous decisions such as Karamjyoti v. Union of
India [Karamjyoti v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6766]
and Shumel v. Union of India [Shumel v. Union of India, 2010
SCC OnLine Del 4706], has held that a writ court will not
interfere in the exercise of discretion of the National Sports
Federation except where the discretion is shown to have been
exercised in an arbitrary or capricious or perverse manner or
contrary to the settled principles or practices. What then is the
task before this Court, is to ascertain whether on a broad, prima
facie view, without getting into the intricacies of the policy
decision, there is manifest arbitrariness or mala fides in the
decision-making of the Committee.

13. The court must resist adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. In
other words, any one single performance at one competition or
trial cannot be used as a barometer to make the decision of
whether to select an athlete. In sports, as the impugned order also
notes, same players perform differently on different occasions
and a number of factors influence an athlete's performance.
Therefore, the petitioner's performance at the court ordered trial
cannot, by and of itself, be considered sufficient to warrant his
selection for particular events. The Committee has to take a
broader view and analyse the performances of the
athletes/sportspersons over different competitions and trials. As
such therefore, the court does not find any infirmity with the
reasoning of the Committee, insofar as all events other than R-7
are concerned (to which we will turn subsequently).

14. This Court is conscious that the Committee has to consider a
wide variety of other factors, including logistical and practical
considerations, in selecting athletes. For instance, age is a
pertinent consideration; in order to promote budding talent and to
ensure that through exposure over periods of time athletes become
better prepared and in turn are likelier to win medals for the
country, the Committee has found it necessary to give younger
athletes a chance over some older athletes. This could for example
explain preferring Avani, who is 16 years old, over the petitioner
for event R-6 for the 2018 Al Ain Championship, even though the
petitioner had a higher score than her in the 61st NSC in the said
event. However, in the 2018 Al Ain Championship, Avani's score
was higher than all the other athletes (even when compared to the
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 18 of 30

petitioner's performance in the court ordered trial), and that too by
a significant margin, thereby in some ways justifying the
Committee's decision to send her over the petitioner.

16. Though the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is very wide but it has to be used with
circumspection. The names in the present case have been finalised by
the Committee of Administrators appointed by this Court in Manika
Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India [Manika Batra v. Table
Tennis Federation of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4479] vide
judgment dated 11-2-2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners have
taken this Court through the findings of the Committee of
Administrators. A bare perusal of the findings of the Committee of
Administrators makes it clear that the Committee has threadbare
examined the entire issue and then after taking into account all
aspects finalised the names to be sent for participating in the
Commonwealth Games. The court in the present jurisdiction cannot
substitute its own view with the view arrived into by the Committee
of Administrators and the Selection Committee. The courts do not
have any expertise to get into the selection and finalisation of
players for participation at the international level. This Court is
conscious of the fact that any such findings can be interfered with
only if there is any perversity or arbitrariness in the findings arrived
into by the Federation concerned. However, I do not find any such
arbitrariness or perversity in the such order and furthermore, Mr
Moazzam Khan, learned counsel for Respondent 1 has stated at bar
that the names have already been finalised and sent to the Indian
Olympic Association.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

18. Perusal of the documents on record and the tabular chart, as aforesaid,
does not indicate in any manner that the process of selection is manifestly or
prima facie arbitrary. This Court finds no error in the selection process as
adopted by the Selection Committee in terms of the Selection Criteria.
19. Since the Selection Criteria as followed in the present case is not
found to be manifestly or prima facie arbitrary, and the petitioner is held not
entitled to take into account the score of the test PSG from the event held at
Hagen, Germany, the contention of the petitioner regarding five-day notice
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 19 of 30

instead of seven-day notice for the said event in view of the amendment in
the Selection Criteria, is immaterial.
20. The contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 8329/2026 regarding
taking the Team MERs into account for the purposes of ranking, and
thereafter, taking the individual scores, is totally erroneous.
21. Clauses 8(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Selection Criteria lay down the criteria
for achieving Team MER and Individual MER in small tour tests. While a
Team MER requires a minimum of 66 percentage score in PSG, and
participation in Intermediate I and Intermediate I Freestyle, an Individual
MER requires participation in PSG and a minimum of 69 percentage score
in both Intermediate I and Intermediate I Freestyle. Clause 8(f) of the
Selection Criteria lays down the manner of calculation of merit, whereby,
for comparative merit, the best two valid results from MER level
competition have to be taken into account, and the riders are ranked on the
basis of the highest cumulative percentage score across these two results.
22. Thus, the plain language of Clause 8(f) of Selection Criteria provides
for the highest cumulative percentage score of the two best MERs, and
makes no distinction between Team and Individual MER. This Court does
not find any infirmity in the reasoning put forth by respondent no. 1 that the
cumulative scores across PSG, Intermediate I and Intermediate I Freestyle
have to be taken to ensure complete competitive preparedness at the
international level for maximising India’s prospect of winning all the three
medals in Dressage at the Asian Games, 2026, which includes both team and
individual medals.
23. Furthermore, the Selection Criteria categorically stipulates that while
considering the composition of the team, all combinations who have attained
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 20 of 30

MERs in individual category, will be placed higher in merit over those who
have attained MERs in the Team Category only. As a sequitur to the
aforesaid, the contention of the petitioners that the Selection Committee
erred in taking the cumulative scores in all the three tests, instead of just
taking the cumulative scores in PSG/Team MER, does not warrant the
intervention of this Court.
24. The calculation of scores of the various sports persons by EFI on the
basis of the Selection Criteria, is reflected in the tabular chart, as below:




25. Perusal of the aforesaid chart clearly shows that the sports persons
have been ranked on the basis of the MERs achieved by them. The MERs in
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 21 of 30

the Individual Category have been placed higher on merit, in terms of the
Selection Criteria. The comparative scores of different sports persons clearly
indicate that they have rightly been ranked on the basis of the MERs
achieved by them. There is nothing before this Court that the criteria
adopted by the EFI, is irrational or perverse in any manner.
26. It is to be noted that this Court in the case of Manini Kaushik Versus
National Rifle Association of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Del
3629 , categorically held that a writ court must not sit as an Appellate
Authority over the decision arrived at by experts, if the same is reasonable
and has been taken in good faith. Thus, in the said case, it was held as
follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
16. The selection criteria has been evolved by experts and this Court
is of the opinion that the criteria is not perverse. The writ court must
only see whether the criteria which have been arrived at is in good
faith and whether the decision is reasonable. The writ court must
not sit as an Appellate Authority over the decisions arrived at by
experts if the same is reasonable and has been taken in good faith.

17. This Court in Yamini Mourya v. Indian Olympic Association, 2023
SCC OnLine Del 6213 has observed as under:

“18. The selection criteria has been evolved by experts and this
Court is of the opinion that the criteria which has been evolved by
the Respondent No. 2 on 10.07.2023, is not perverse. The writ
court must only see whether the criteria which have been arrived
at is in good faith and whether the decision is reasonable. The
writ court must not sit as an Appellate Authority over the
decisions arrived at by experts if the same is reasonable and has
been taken in good faith.

19. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shumel v. Union of
India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4706, has observed as under:

“ 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is
of the view that in matters of selecting the best possible
candidate to represent India in an international competitive
event, there cannot be any interference by this Court in the
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 22 of 30

selection criteria set down by the concerned national sports
federation. If the Petitioner has not been able to qualify in the
top 10 wrestlers in the national championship held at the
conclusion of a ten months long coaching camp and on that
basis was excluded from participation in the next level of
selection trials, that action cannot be held to be either arbitrary
or unreasonable warranting interference by this Court.”

20. The said judgment has been quoted with approval in Sushil
Kumar v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3660, wherein it
was once again held that a writ court will not interfere in exercise
of discretion of National Sports Federation and substitute its own
judgment except where discretion is shown to have been exercised
in an arbitrary or capricious or perverse manner or contrary to
settled principles or practices. Relevant portion of the said
judgment reads as under:

“41. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view
that a writ Court will not interfere in the exercise of discretion
of the National Sports Federation and substitute its own
judgment except where the discretion is shown to have been
exercised in an arbitrary or capricious or perverse manner or
contrary to settled principles or practices.”

xxx xxx xxx
18. Applying the law as enunciated by this Court to the facts of the
present case, this Court is of the opinion that the criteria has been laid
down by experts in the field. Nothing has been shown to this Court
that the criteria as framed is perverse or would be hit by the
Wednesbury Principle. The Respondents have selected the
sportspersons who can take part in the selection trials as per the
criteria. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority either over
the criteria or the selection of the sportspersons who have been
selected to take part in the selection trials. This Court is of the
opinion that the selection has been done in the best interest of the
country and as per the norms which have been made applicable to
all the sportspersons across the country. Nothing has been shown to
his Court that the Petitioner has been deliberately omitted or that
there has been any favoritism to select any sportsperson.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

27. Furthermore, the petitioners have raised the contention that the list
th
released by the EFI on 16 June, 2026 was only a provisional list containing
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 23 of 30

the names of six probables, who would proceed for the competition. It is
their case that as per Clause 15(b) of the Selection Criteria, the six probables
had to compete against each other for determining the top four athletes, who
would participate in the Asian Games, 2026. Since no trial inter se the six
probables was conducted, the final list released is not as per correct
procedure. However, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid contention
of the petitioners is misplaced.
28. This Court is of the considered opinion that the selection procedure
followed by the EFI is in consonance with the Selection Criteria and the
absence of subsequent competitive rounds does not invalidate the decision
of the EFI. Failure to conduct additional competitions in terms of Clause
15(b) of the Selection Criteria does not undermine or vitiate the decision
reached by the Selection Committee and the Ad-hoc Executive Committee
of EFI, which are the deciding authorities under the Selection Criteria.
29. This Court takes note of the submission of the EFI that all six athletes
th
as mentioned in the list dated 16 June, 2026, including the two petitioners
herein, are stationed abroad in different parts of Europe, making it
unfeasible to carry out any further competitions/trial, as such.
30. Further, it is imperative to note that Clause 15(e) of the Selection
Criteria, provides that in cases of unforeseen matters, i.e., where any matter
that has not been addressed in the Selection Criteria arise at any stage, the
same will be put to the Selection Committee for consideration. The decision
taken collectively by the Selection Committee and Executive Committee,
shall be considered final and binding.
31. Thus, once the decision has been made by the EFI on the basis of
Selection Criteria and achieved MER results, the mere fact that further trials
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 24 of 30

could not be held, in view of the aforesaid explanations given by the EFI,
this Court finds no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the EFI in
view of Clause 15(e) of the Selection Criteria.
32. Moreover, this Court notes that the purpose of Clause 15(b) of the
Selection Criteria with respect to competitions during training period was to
ensure maintenance of fitness and form of horse-rider combinations, and to
enable the Selection Committee to take a call on the final order of merits.
Since, the order of merit of the athletes has been determined on the basis of
the best two MERs, out of which at least one MER mandatorily has been
th th
achieved within the period from 17 April, 2026 to 15 June, 2026, the
purpose to ensure selection of horse-rider combination demonstrating
current form, fitness, soundness, and competitive readiness, stands achieved.
33. As per Clause 15(a) of the Selection Criteria, the selected
combinations would be considered as probables till the EFI, in consultation
with the Selection Committee and coaches for each discipline again reviews
the entire process before submission of final entry of Asian Games.
34. As per the Minutes of Meeting of the Dressage Selection Committee
th
dated 15 June, 2026, the Selection Committee examined the performances
of all eligible horse-rider combinations, including, MER achievements so
that the selected team and reserve riders emerged strictly from the order of
merit prepared under the Selection Criteria. The Selection Committee
followed the selection process based upon objective performance criteria,
MER achievements, and valid trial results.
th
35. Further, on 15 June, 2026, the Selection Committee addressed a
letter to the Ad-hoc Executive Committee of EFI informing the list of
probables to represent India in Dressage Event at the Asian Games, 2026.
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 25 of 30

Additionally, the detailed evaluation sheets, findings and merit calculations
were annexed for reference.
36. In furtherance to the aforesaid letter, the Ad-hoc Executive
Committee of EFI, in consonance with Clause 15(a) of the Selection
Criteria, invited the members of the respective Selection Sub-Committees to
th
present their recommendations, in its meeting held on 15 June, 2026. As
per the Minutes of the Meeting on record, the EFI deliberated upon the
recommendations of the Selection Committee and discussed the matter in
detail with the members present. Thereafter, the Ad-hoc Executive
Committee of EFI itself deliberated extensively, and discussed the matter at
length. After detailed consideration, the Ad-hoc Executive Committee of
EFI unanimously accepted the recommendations of the Selection
th
Committee. Hence, the list declared on 16 June, 2026 was final and binding
in terms of Clause 15(a) of the Selection Criteria.
37. Clearly, the documents on record point out that the Ad-hoc Executive
Committee of EFI has discussed and deliberated upon the recommendations
of the Selection Committee and finalised the list thereafter.
38. There is no material before this Court that the compliance in terms of
Clause 15(a) of the Selection Criteria, has not been made. The documents
placed on record by the respondent – EFI, make it evident that the entire
procedure as envisioned under Clause 15 of the Selection Criteria was
followed.
39. This Court further takes note of the submission of EFI that even
though the deadline for submitting the definitive entries has been extended
th
to 15 July, 2026, the Indian team that would represent the country at the
th
Asian Games, 2026 would have to be finalised before 04 July, 2026 in
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 26 of 30

order to ensure compliance with other necessary requirements of the Asian
Games, 2026, Japan.
40. The selection process followed by the EFI has been found to be fair
and in consonance with the Selection Criteria. The selection process is not
found to be irrational, arbitrary or perverse in any manner by this Court. As
per established law, it is beyond the scope of judicial review by this Court,
to substitute its judgment for that of the experts in matters concerning
selection of sports persons for international sporting events. Accordingly,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the selection made by the Expert
Body in terms of the Selection Criteria.
41. Furthermore, since the decision of the Selection Committee and the
EFI, has been found to be in consonance with the Selection Criteria, the
contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 8290/2026 regarding bias, is also
without any merit.
42. This Court does not find any strength in the contention of the
petitioner in W.P.(C) 8290/2026 , that the selection process was vitiated by a
conflict of interest between the petitioner, i.e., Mr. Anush Agarwalla and
Mr. Kapil Modi, who was a member of the Selection Committee.
43. Although the petitioner had objected to Mr. Kapil Modi’s
th
participation in the Selection Committee in the WhatsApp Chat dated 08
April, 2026, as attached along with the writ petition, however, the
subsequent conduct of the petitioner throughout the selection process makes
it apparent that the petitioner had acquiesced to the composition of the
Selection Committee and waived of any allegation in this regard. There is no
th
document on record, other than the WhatsApp Chat dated 08 April, 2026,
to show that the petitioner had any objection to the members of the Selection
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 27 of 30

Committee or sought reconstitution of the Selection Committee at any stage.
44. Moreover, once the entire selection process has been completed and
the final results have been declared, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 8290/2026 ,
cannot be permitted to challenge the said results merely because he was not
selected in the top four athletes, particularly, when this Court does not find
the decision of the Selection Committee and Ad-hoc Committee of the EFI
to be manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable or in variance to the Selection
Criteria.
45. In this regard, it shall be apposite to refer to the decision in the case of
Manak Lal, Advocate Versus Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and Others, (1957)
1 SCC 260 , wherein, the Supreme Court held as under:
“xxx xxx xxx

12. The next question which falls to be considered is whether it was
open to the appellant to take this objection for the first time before the
High Court? In other words, has he or has he not waived his objection
to the presence of Shri Chhangani in the Tribunal? Shri Daphtary
does not seriously contest the position that the objection could have
been effectively waived. The alleged bias in a member of the
Tribunal does not render the proceedings invalid if it is shown that
the objection against the presence of the member in question had
not been taken by the party even though the party knew about the
circumstances giving rise to the allegations about the alleged bias
and was aware of his right to challenge the presence of the member
in the Tribunal. It is true that waiver cannot always and in every
case be inferred merely from the failure of the party to take the
objection. Waiver can be inferred only if and after it is shown that
the party knew about the relevant facts and was aware of his right to
take the objection in question. As Sir John Romilly, M.R., has
observed in Vyvyan v. Vyvyan [Vyvyan v. Vyvyan, (1861) 30 Beav 65
at p. 74 : 54 ER 813 at p. 817] : (ER p. 817)

“… Waiver or acquiescence, like election, presupposes that the
person to be bound is fully cognizant of his rights, and, that
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 28 of 30

being so, he neglects to enforce them, or chooses one benefit
instead of another, either, but not both, of which he might
claim.”

If, in the present case, it appears that the appellant knew all the facts
about the alleged disability of Shri Chhangani and was also aware
that he could effectively request the learned Chief Justice to
nominate some other member instead of Shri Chhangani and yet did
not adopt that course, it may well be that he deliberately took a
chance to obtain a report in his favour from the Tribunal and when
he came to know that the report had gone against him he thought
better of his rights and raised this point before the High Court for
the first time. In other words, though the point of law raised by Shri
Daphtary against the competence of the Tribunal be sound, it is still
necessary for us to consider whether the appellant was precluded
from raising this point before the High Court by waiver or
acquiescence.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

46. In the present case, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 8290/2026 was in the
th
knowledge of the constitution of the Selection Committee since 08 April,
2026, as per his own admission. There is no document on record that would
show that the petitioner wrote any letter/E-mail or made any representation
regarding reconstitution of the Selection Committee. If the petitioner was
aggrieved by the constitution of the Selection Committee and perceived that
there would be bias against him, there was nothing to stop the petitioner
from seeking his remedies in this regard. However, the petitioner neither
represented to the EFI for reconstitution of the Selection Committee on
account of presence of Mr. Kapil Modi, nor sought any legal remedies in
this regard. Accordingly, the petitioner is precluded from raising such issue
of bias before this Court, on account of his own conduct which clearly
points out to acquiescence and waiver of the said issue by the petitioner.
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 29 of 30

47. Thus, no merit is found in the present petitions. The same are
accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.



MINI PUSHKARNA, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 29, 2026/ au
W.P.(C) 8329/2026 & W.P.(C) 8290/2026 Page 30 of 30