MR. RAMESH BUDIHAL vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
®
CNR: KAHC010460102026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 20663 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
MR. RAMESH BUDIHAL
S/O HAMAMANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/A 261/2083
CHARUVILA COLONY
KOTTAPPURAM, VIZHINJAM,
KOVALAM, KERALA 695 521.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VINAY N. ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS,
SHASTRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110001.
2. SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL,
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI-110003.
3. INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION,
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
OLYMPIC BHAWAN,
B-29, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
NEW DELHI 110016.
4. SURFING FEDERATION OF INDIA,
A NATIONAL SPORTS FEDERATION
RECOGNISED BY THE MINISTRY OF YOUTH
AFFAIRS AND SPORTS,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
MULKI, MANGALORE
DAKSHINA KANNADA 574 174
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
5. SIVARAJ BABU,
S/O BABU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/A NO.52, GKM STREET,
MAMALLAPURAM, CHENGALPATTU
TAMIL NADU- 603104.
…. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KESHAV M DATAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. ABHILASH R., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. SNEHIL BALANI., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. AJAY NANDALIKE., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE DECISION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 23.06.2026 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H) AND THE
CONSEQUENTIALLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RECALL THE
FORWARDED LIST OF THE SELECTED ATHLETES TO THE ASIAN
GAMES 2026 AND
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.08.2026, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari and Quash the decision
of the 4th Respondent dated 23.06.2026
(Produced as Annexure-"H"); and the
consequentially direct the Respondent No.3 to
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
recall the forwarded list of the selected athletes to
the Asian games 2026; and
ii. Issue a writ of Certiorari and quash the Selection
public summary dated 20.06.2026 and
21.06.2026 passed by Respondent No.4
(produced as Annexure- "E" and "F"); and
iii. Consequently, direct the Respondent No. 4 to
constitute a fresh selection committee to select
the name of Athletes as per the common order
dated 16.06.2026: (Produced as Annexure-D')
and:
iv. Pass such other order as deemed fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner is a professional surfer and an
accomplished Indian athlete in the discipline of
surfing. He has represented India in several National
and International surfing competitions and has
distinguished himself through his performances. The
Petitioner is also stated to be the only Indian surfer
to have secured a Bronze Medal at the Asian Surfing
Championship, 2025, thereby bringing international
recognition to the country.
3. Respondent No.4-Surfing Federation of India
(hereinafter referred to as “ SFI ”) undertook the
selection process for identifying surfers to represent
India in the men's and women's surfing events at the
20th Asian Games to be held at Aichi-Nagoya, Japan,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
in 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Asian
Games ”). The SFI is the national governing body for
the sport of surfing in India and, in that capacity, is
entrusted with the task of assessing and selecting
eligible athletes to represent the country in
international competitions, including the Asian
Games. The SFI functions under the National Sports
Development Code of India and, pursuant to the
directions of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
(hereinafter referred to as “ MYAS ”), formulated a
Selection Policy for the Asian Games.
4. The SFI had initially constituted a Selection
Committee which proceeded to select certain
athletes. The said selection was challenged by the
Petitioner as well as Surf Kerala, the Surf Association
of the State of Kerala. In terms of Clause 11 of the
Selection Policy, an Appeals Panel was constituted to
consider the challenge. By its decision dated
16.06.2026, the Appeals Panel set aside the selection
and directed the SFI to constitute a Selection
Committee in accordance with Clause 10 of the
Selection Policy and undertake a fresh exercise of
selection.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
5. The Appeals Panel further directed that due
weightage be given to performances in the Asian
Championships and that, in the event of any
deviation therefrom, detailed and cogent reasons be
recorded. It was also directed that all International
events conducted from 01.01.2025 onwards be taken
into consideration while undertaking the fresh
selection.
6. Pursuant to the decision of the Appeals Panel dated
16.06.2026, a Special Selection Committee was
constituted. The Committee unanimously selected
Mr.Kishore Kumar as the first confirmed athlete and
Mr.Srikanth.D, as the second reserved athlete.
However, the Committee could not arrive at either a
unanimous or majority decision regarding the
placement of the Petitioner and Respondent No.5,
who is also a surfer, in the second confirmed position
and the first reserved position respectively.
7. Recording that there was a tie between the Petitioner
and Respondent No.5, the Committee resolved to
reconvene after obtaining clarification from the
relevant authorities and stakeholders regarding the
applicable procedure for breaking the tie.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
8. Pursuant thereto, a communication was addressed to
the SFI seeking clarification, which was furnished by
the General Secretary of the SFI. The Special
Selection Committee thereafter reconvened on
21.06.2026 to resolve the deadlock between the
Petitioner and Respondent No.5. During the
deliberations, the members expressed divergent
views regarding the methodology to be adopted, and
no consensus could be reached on the interpretation
of the applicable criteria. When the matter was put to
vote, the deadlock continued, with two voting
members supporting the Petitioner and two
supporting Respondent No.5.
9. In these circumstances, and pursuant to the
recommendation of the General Secretary, the
Committee recommended that a Surf-Off be
conducted between the Petitioner and Respondent
No.5 to determine their respective positions.
10. One of the members, however, expressed the view
that the procedure adopted by the Committee was
not in accordance with the Selection Policy and that
the Asian Surfing Championships, 2025, ought to
have been taken into consideration in terms of the
specific direction issued by the Appeals Panel. The
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
said member consequently resigned from the
Committee.
11. Thereafter, the Executive Council of the SFI took an
“Executive Call” and finalised the selection by
selecting Respondent No.5 as the second confirmed
athlete and the Petitioner as the first reserved
athlete. The said selection was accepted by the
Sports Authority of India and forwarded to the Indian
Olympic Association, which, in turn, forwarded the
names to the Asian Olympic Association. The
aforesaid selection and the consequential actions
taken pursuant thereto are under challenge in the
present proceedings.
12. Shri P N Manmohan, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, submits that:
12.1. The selection of Respondent No.5 as the second
confirmed athlete and the consequential
placement of the Petitioner as the first reserved
athlete are vitiated by serious procedural and
substantive infirmities. The impugned selection
is contrary to the Selection Policy framed by the
SFI, the specific directions issued by the
Appeals Panel in its decision dated 16.06.2026,
and even the subsequent clarification furnished
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
by the General Secretary of the SFI. The
Petitioner is not seeking that this Court
undertake an assessment of sporting merit or
substitute its own opinion for that of the expert
Selection Committee. The challenge is
fundamentally to the legality of the decision-
making process, the failure to adhere to the
prescribed selection criteria, the disregard of
the directions issued on remand, and the
arbitrary manner in which the deadlock
between the Petitioner and Respondent No.5
was ultimately sought to be resolved.
12.2. Learned counsel submits that the controversy
has to be examined against the background of
the earlier selection process. The SFI had
initially constituted a Selection Committee and
proceeded to select certain athletes. The said
selection was challenged by the Petitioner and
Surf Kerala. An Appeals Panel was constituted
under Clause 11 of the Selection Policy to
consider the challenge. Upon examination of
the constitution of the Selection Committee and
the methodology adopted by it, the Appeals
Panel found that the constitution of the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Committee itself was contrary to Clause 10 of
the Selection Policy.
12.3. He refers to Clause 10 which is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
10. Governance: Selection Committee & Conflicts
•
Selection Committee: HPD (non-voting chair),
2 senior coaches, 1 athlete representative, 1
external expert/judge, 1 legal/ethics observer
(non-voting).
•
Conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
•
Minutes recorded and public summary posted
within 7 days after decisions.
12.4. The earlier Committee consisted of eight
persons, all of whom participated in the voting
process, whereas Clause 10 contemplated a
specifically structured Selection Committee with
only the prescribed voting members, while the
HPD and the Legal/Ethics Observer were non-
voting members. The Appeals Panel
consequently held that the defect was not
merely an error in the appreciation of material
or reasoning, but went to the very identity of
the decision-maker and set aside the earlier
selection.
12.5. Learned counsel submits that the significance of
the decision of the Appeals Panel is that it was
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
not an unrestricted remand. The Appeals Panel
directed the SFI to constitute a fresh Selection
Committee strictly in accordance with Clause 10
of the Selection Policy and to undertake a fresh
selection. In doing so, the Appeals Panel
specifically addressed the period and material
which were required to be considered. It found
that restricting the relevant period to events
commencing from September 2025 was
inconsistent with the Selection Policy and
directed that the relevant period should
commence from 01.01.2025. It further directed
that all International events during the relevant
period be taken into consideration, thereby
ensuring that the Asian Surfing Championship,
2025 also formed part of the assessment.
12.6. Learned counsel submits that the Appeals Panel
further considered the MYAS Directive dated
24.09.2025 and recognised that performance in
the Asian Surfing Championship, and
particularly the prescribed benchmark of a top-
six finish, was a significant and mandatory
consideration. The Appeals Panel did not
prescribe a fixed numerical weight for the Asian
Championship performance and did not hold
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
that such performance would automatically
determine the outcome. However, the absence
of a fixed numerical weight could not mean that
the criterion could be ignored. On the contrary,
the Appeals Panel expressly held that the Asian
Championship benchmark was required to be
considered as an important factor and that,
where the Selection Committee departed from
that benchmark, detailed and substantial
reasons were required to be recorded.
12.7. According to learned counsel, this direction
assumes particular significance in the case of
the Petitioner, who had secured a Bronze Medal
at the Asian Surfing Championship, 2025. The
Petitioner therefore did not merely participate
in the relevant Championship but secured a
podium finish. The very championship which
the Appeals Panel had specifically directed the
fresh Selection Committee to consider thus
contained a performance of particular relevance
to the Petitioner. Learned counsel submits that
the Appeals Panel had applied the policy of
MYAS and directed that the relevant period as
prescribed by MYAS would ensure that such
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
performances would not be excluded from
consideration.
12.8. Learned counsel further submits that the
Appeals Panel had also identified the
deficiencies in the manner in which the earlier
Selection Committee had undertaken the
comparative exercise. It observed that a
subjective “gut feeling” could not constitute the
basis for selection and that, while the
experience and knowledge of the Head Coach
could legitimately be utilised where objective
criteria were equal, and a tie remained, the
primary exercise had to be based upon
objective comparison of the data relating to the
competing athletes. The Appeals Panel
observed that separate results of the athletes
could be compared against each other and
evaluated numerically so as to provide a proper
basis for selection.
12.9. It is submitted that the fresh selection exercise
was therefore required to remedy precisely
these deficiencies. The Appeals Panel had
identified the relevant period, specified the
international competitions to be considered,
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
emphasised the significance of the Asian
Championship performance, required reasons
for deviation from the prescribed benchmark
and required the selection to be undertaken by
a properly constituted Selection Committee.
These directions constituted the framework
within which the fresh decision was required to
be made.
12.10. Pursuant to the decision dated 16.06.2026, a
Special Selection Committee was constituted.
The Committee unanimously selected Mr.
Kishore Kumar as the first confirmed athlete
and Mr. Srikanth D. as the second reserved
athlete. However, when the question arose as
to the placement of the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5 in the second confirmed
position and the first reserved position
respectively, the Committee could not arrive at
a unanimous or majority decision and recorded
that a tie existed between the two athletes.
12.11. Learned counsel submits that the existence of a
tie did not confer upon the Committee an
unrestricted discretion to devise a new method
of selection. The Selection Policy itself
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
contained a tie-breaking mechanism. The
clarification subsequently furnished by the
General Secretary of the SFI also recognised a
sequential methodology for resolving the
deadlock. The Committee was therefore
required to exhaust the objective criteria and
the tie-break mechanism contained in the Policy
before resorting to any exceptional or
supplementary mechanism.
12.12. Pursuant to the request for clarification, the
General Secretary of the SFI furnished his
views by email dated 21.06.2026. The
clarification is of considerable significance
because it expressly contemplated a sequential
process.
12.12.1. At Step 1, the Committee was required
to determine the position on the basis of
objective, cross-comparable performance
data, with the Asian Surfing
Championship, 2025 expressly identified
as an important objective input.
12.12.2. At Step 2, if Step 1 did not produce a
clear outcome, the Committee was
required to apply the tie-break sequence
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
contained in the Selection Policy, namely
the head-to-head record in the relevant
events, the highest best single-event
result/points, the second-best single-
event result and, as a final differentiator,
the subjective assessment.
12.12.3. Only thereafter, at Step 3, was an
internal Surf-Off suggested as a possible
mechanism.
12.12.4. If the matter still remained unresolved,
Step 4 contemplated escalation to
MYAS/SAI.
12.13. Learned counsel submits that the clarification
did not create an independent and unrestricted
choice between these four alternatives. It
prescribed a sequence. The Committee was
therefore required to proceed from Step 1 to
Step 2 and only thereafter, if the matter
continued to remain unresolved, consider Step
3. The Committee could not lawfully bypass the
Policy's own tie-breaking provisions and
proceed directly to a Surf-Off merely because
the members were unable to agree upon the
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
methodology for evaluating the objective
material.
12.14. The selection process, including the tie-break
mechanism as per the policy, is contained in
Clause 5, which is reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
5. Selection Pathway (Modules & Timelines)
Module 1 - Eligibility Pool (Ranking Gate)
1. As of 30 September 2025, the Top-8 Men and Top-
8 Women in SFI National Rankings (LiveHeats) form
the Selection Pool.
2. Ties at #8 resolved by: (i) head-to-head in 2025
events, (ii) higher best single-event points, (iii)
second-best single-event, (iv) coin toss in presence of
SC and recorded on video.
3. Eligibility conditions: Indian passport, IOA/OCA
eligibility, NADA compliance, signed agreements (Code
of Conduct, Media/Name & Likeness, Data Processing
consent, Anti-harassment & Safeguarding).
Module 2 - Centralized 2-Day Assessment Camp
(Top-8)
•
Conducted no later than 31 March 2026 at an
SFI-approved venue.
•
Mandatory attendance unless medically exempt.
•
Components (all recorded on video/CCTV):
•
Performance heats (ISA/ASF/SFI scoring)
•
Technical drills
•
Physical testing
•
Psychological/HP screening
•
Compliance briefing.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
•
Weightings published 30 days before camp.
Indicative: Heats 50%, Tech 20%, Physical 15%,
HP/Psych 10%, Compliance 5%.
•
Output: Objective composite scores; top
performers progress.
•
The selection pool can be reduced under the
discretion of the head coach and SFI selection
committee.
Module 3 - Reduction to Competition Squad +
Bench
•
Based on Module-2 scores plus 2025 ranking
points, SC reduces the squad by 30 April 2026 to
the following numbers or lower as determined by
the selection committee:
o
Top-3 Men + up to 2 bench athletes
o
Top-3 Women + up to 2 bench athletes
o Tie-breakers mirror Module-1.
•
Minutes and scorecards shared (data masked).
Module 4 - Team Camp & Qualification Alignment
•
The picked team (competition squad and bench
athletes) trains under National
•
Coaches/HPD from November 2025-September
2026, including ASF qualifiers/required events.
•
Continued selection conditional on: fitness, form,
conduct, and compliance.
•
Internal surf-offs may be conducted by 15 July
2026 if required.
Module 5 - Final Nomination & Submission
•
Provisional names approved by SC and ratified by
SFI EC by 20 July 2026.
•
Final names submitted to IOA no later than 1
August 2026.
•
Only 2 Men and 2 Women will be nominated to
the Asian Games (as per quota). Bench athletes
may be substituted in case of injury, withdrawal,
or non-compliance before final submission.
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
•
Selection Pool/Picked team (competition squad
and bench athletes) trains under National
Coaches/HPD from November 2025-September
2026, including ASF qualifiers/required events as
per the modules.
12.15. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
Clause 5 of the Selection Policy is central to the
present controversy. The clause prescribes a
five-stage selection process, beginning with the
eligibility pool and ending with the final
nomination of athletes to the Asian Games. It
also prescribes objective criteria for assessment
and specific tie-break mechanisms. The
Selection Committee was therefore required to
act within the framework of Clause 5 and could
not, merely because a difficulty or deadlock
arose, adopt a method different from that
contemplated by the Policy.
12.16. He submits that under Module 1, the Selection
Pool is to be formed on the basis of the SFI
National Rankings. Even at that stage, the
Policy specifically provides for resolution of a tie
by reference to objective criteria, namely, head-
to-head performance in the 2025 events, the
higher best single-event points and the second-
best single-event performance, followed only
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
thereafter by a coin toss in the presence of the
Selection Committee, with the process being
recorded on video.
12.17. Module 3 expressly provides that its tie-
breakers shall mirror those prescribed in
Module 1. The Policy, therefore, does not leave
the resolution of a tie to an unrestricted
discretion of the Selection Committee.
12.18. Learned counsel submits that the structure of
Clause 5 is important. The Policy proceeds in
stages. The athletes first enter the Selection
Pool; they thereafter undergo the Centralised
Assessment Camp; the Selection Committee
then reduces the pool to the competition squad
and bench; the selected athletes thereafter
undergo team training and qualification-related
activities; and, finally, the names are
nominated to the Asian Games. The selection is
thus intended to be based on a continuing
assessment of the athletes and not on a single
isolated event conducted at the end of the
process.
12.19. He submits that Module 2 reinforces the
objective nature of the process. It provides for
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
assessment through performance heats,
technical drills, physical testing,
psychological/HP screening and compliance,
with the weightings to be published in advance.
The result of the assessment is to be an
objective composite score on the basis of which
the athletes progress.
12.20. Module 3 thereafter requires the Selection
Committee to consider the Module 2 scores
together with the 2025 ranking points while
reducing the competition squad and bench.
Thus, the Policy itself provides the Selection
Committee with an objective framework for
making the selection.
12.21. Learned counsel submits that the Policy also
contemplates the possibility of an internal Surf-
Off. Module 4 states that internal Surf-Offs may
be conducted by 15.07.2026, if required.
However, this provision has to be read along
with the other provisions of Clause 5,
particularly the express tie-break provisions in
Modules 1 and 3. The mere fact that a Surf-Off
is contemplated does not mean that it can be
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
used to bypass the prescribed tie-break
mechanism.
12.22. According to learned counsel, this interpretation
is supported by the subsequent clarification
furnished by the General Secretary of the SFI
on 21.06.2026. The General Secretary
suggested a sequential process: first,
comparison of the objective performance data;
second, application of the tie-break sequence
contained in the Policy; third, if the matter still
remained unresolved, consideration of an
internal Surf-Off; and, thereafter, escalation to
MYAS/SAI if necessary. Thus, even on the SFI's
own clarification, a Surf-Off was not the first
method available for resolving the deadlock.
12.23. Learned counsel submits that the above
provisions assume greater significance in the
light of the decision of the Appeals Panel dated
16.06.2026. The earlier selection had already
been set aside because the Selection
Committee had not been constituted in
accordance with Clause 10 of the Selection
Policy. The Appeals Panel found that the defect
went to the constitution of the decision-making
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
body itself and directed that a fresh Selection
Committee be constituted in accordance with
the Policy.
12.24. He submits that the Appeals Panel also
examined the period and material which were
required to be considered in the fresh selection.
It held that the relevant period could not be
restricted to events commencing from
September 2025 and directed that events from
01.01.2025 onwards be taken into
consideration. The direction was significant
because it ensured that the performance of the
athletes in the Asian Surfing Championship,
2025 would form part of the assessment.
12.25. Learned counsel further submits that the
Appeals Panel considered the MYAS Directive
dated 24.09.2025 and held that the
performance in the Asian Surfing
Championship, including the prescribed
benchmark, was an important consideration.
The Appeals Panel did not prescribe any fixed
numerical weight for that performance. At the
same time, it made it clear that a departure
from the benchmark required detailed and
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
substantial reasons. Thus, according to learned
counsel, the absence of a fixed numerical
weight did not permit the Selection Committee
to ignore the performance altogether.
12.26. This direction was particularly relevant to the
Petitioner, who had secured the Bronze Medal in
the Asian Surfing Championship, 2025. Learned
counsel submits that the Petitioner's
performance was therefore one of the specific
international performances which the Appeals
Panel had directed the fresh Selection
Committee to consider.
12.27. He further submits that the Appeals Panel had
also cautioned against relying upon a subjective
assessment where objective comparative data
could be considered. While recognising that the
experience and knowledge of the Head Coach
could have a role where objective criteria were
equal, the Appeals Panel indicated that the
results of the competing athletes should first be
compared and evaluated on an objective basis.
12.28. Pursuant to the decision dated 16.06.2026, a
Special Selection Committee was constituted.
The Committee unanimously selected Mr.
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Kishore Kumar as the first confirmed athlete
and Mr. Srikanth D. as the second reserved
athlete. However, when the Committee
considered the Petitioner and Respondent No.5
for the second confirmed position and the first
reserved position, it could not arrive at a
unanimous or majority decision and recorded
that there was a tie between the two athletes.
12.29. Learned counsel submits that the existence of a
tie did not give the Committee a fresh or
unrestricted power to devise a method of
selection. The Policy already contained tie-
break provisions, and the General Secretary's
subsequent clarification identified the order in
which those provisions and other available
mechanisms were to be considered.
12.30. The clarification dated 21.06.2026 required the
Committee first to consider objective, cross-
comparable performance data. The Asian
Surfing Championship, 2025 was expressly
identified as an important objective input. If
that exercise did not resolve the matter, the
next step was to apply the tie-break sequence
under the Policy, namely the head-to-head
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
record, the highest best single-event
result/points, the second-best single-event
result and the final subjective assessment. Only
if the issue still remained unresolved was a
Surf-Off suggested, followed, if necessary, by
reference to MYAS/SAI.
12.31. Learned counsel submits that this was a
sequence and not a choice between alternative
methods. The Committee was therefore
required to complete the first two stages before
considering the Surf-Off.
12.32. According to learned counsel, the proceedings
of the Special Selection Committee dated
21.06.2026 show that the prescribed sequence
was not completed. The members continued to
disagree on the meaning and application of the
objective criteria. One issue was the scope of
“head-to-head” comparison. Another concerned
the averaging of percentile scores where the
athletes had participated in different numbers
of competitions. No consensus emerged on
these methodological issues.
12.33. Learned counsel submits that such
disagreement could not by itself justify
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
abandoning the tie-break mechanism. If the
Committee found genuine difficulty in applying
a provision of the Policy, it was required either
to apply the provision by recording its reasons
or obtain appropriate clarification from the
competent authority. It could not replace the
prescribed mechanism with a different one.
12.34. The principal grievance of the Petitioner,
therefore, is that the Committee did not first
apply the Policy's tie-break sequence and then
conclude that the tie continued. Instead, while
the members were still divided on the
methodology of comparison, the discussion
moved towards the possibility of a Surf-Off.
According to learned counsel, this amounted to
bypassing the prescribed process.
12.35. Learned counsel submits that the failure to give
meaningful consideration to the Petitioner's
Bronze Medal in the Asian Surfing
Championship, 2025 is a separate and material
defect. The Committee itself recognised that
the Asian Championship performance was an
important factor. However, because there was
no fixed numerical weight assigned to that
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
performance, it did not incorporate the
performance into the comparative assessment
in any meaningful manner.
12.36. He submits that there is a clear distinction
between not assigning a fixed numerical weight
to a factor and not considering the factor. The
Appeals Panel had consciously declined to
prescribe a numerical formula, but had directed
that the Asian Championship performance be
considered. The General Secretary's clarification
also treated that performance as an important
objective input. Therefore, the absence of a
prescribed numerical score could not be a
reason for disregarding the Petitioner's Bronze
Medal.
12.37. Learned counsel further submits that the
Comprehensive Analytical Report placed before
the Special Selection Committee contained
extensive comparative material, including
International and National results, rankings,
wins, percentile analysis, podium finishes, heat-
win percentages, advancement percentages,
best-wave scores, clutch-wave statistics,
National Coaching Camp data and athlete-
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
comparison metrics. The existence of this
material, however, did not by itself satisfy the
requirement of objective assessment. The
Committee was required to show how the
relevant material, including the Asian
Championship performance, was considered
and applied to the two athletes.
12.38. The subsequent voting also did not resolve the
matter. Two members voted in favour of the
Petitioner and two in favour of Respondent
No.5. Thus, the voting resulted in an equal
division. Learned counsel submits that this
situation called for application of the prescribed
tie-break mechanism or, if clarification was
required, reference to the competent authority.
Instead, the Committee proceeded towards
recommending a Surf-Off even though the
earlier stages of the prescribed process had not
been completed.
12.39. Learned counsel submits that the procedural
difficulty was further aggravated when Ms.
Nitisha Sethia expressed reservations regarding
the methodology being adopted, including the
treatment of the Asian Surfing Championship,
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
2025 performance, and thereafter exited the
meeting. Despite her exit, the remaining
members continued the discussion regarding
the Surf-Off. According to learned counsel, once
the constitution of the Committee had been
materially affected, the remaining members
ought not to have proceeded with the selection
exercise without obtaining appropriate
directions from the competent authority.
12.40. Learned counsel submits that the subsequent
action of the Executive Council also suffers from
a separate infirmity. Under Module 5 of Clause
5, the provisional names are to be approved by
the Selection Committee and thereafter ratified
by the Executive Council. According to learned
counsel, this indicates that the Executive
Council's role is one of ratification of a selection
already made in accordance with the Policy and
not substitution of its own selection for that of
the Selection Committee.
12.41. The significance of this provision arises because
the Executive Council described its action as an
“Executive Call” and selected Respondent No.5
as the second confirmed athlete, placing the
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Petitioner as the first reserve. Learned counsel
submits that the Policy does not confer an
independent power upon the Executive Council
to make an original selection merely because
the Selection Committee has failed to resolve a
deadlock. The power of ratification presupposes
a valid provisional selection by the Selection
Committee.
12.42. He submits that the Executive Council could not
therefore cure the failure of the Special
Selection Committee to complete the prescribed
process by making its own selection. If the
Selection Committee had not lawfully
completed the exercise, there was no valid
provisional selection capable of being ratified.
12.43. Learned counsel further relies upon the
communication of the SFI dated 22.06.2026. In
paragraph 10, the Federation stated that the
Petitioner's Bronze Medal had been considered
but was not determinative of the outcome. In
paragraph 11, the Federation referred to
paragraph 5 of the MYAS Directive dated
24.09.2025, described as the “Relaxation
Clause”, and sought the Ministry's concurrence.
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
12.44. Learned counsel submits that the reference to
the relaxation provision is significant because it
indicates that the Federation itself understood
that the final selection involved a departure
from the benchmark contemplated by the MYAS
Directive. Such a power, even if available, could
not be used to cure an otherwise defective
selection process. The prescribed procedure
had first to be completed, and any relaxation
had to be exercised by the competent authority
in accordance with the conditions governing
that power and for reasons capable of scrutiny.
12.45. Learned counsel also submits that the
Respondents cannot rely upon administrative
urgency to justify the departure from the Policy.
Although the Respondents relied upon the
deadline for submission of names, the Policy
itself contemplated an internal Surf-Off, if
required, by 15.07.2026 and provided for final
nomination thereafter. The Policy therefore did
not make the immediate adoption of a Surf-Off
necessary. In any event, an administrative
deadline could not enlarge the authority of the
Selection Committee or the Executive Council
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
or dispense with the prescribed selection
procedure.
12.46. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner is
not asking this Court to determine which of the
two athletes is the better surfer. Nor does he
seek substitution of the Court's assessment for
that of the sporting experts. The challenge is to
the manner in which the decision was reached.
12.47. According to learned counsel, the Court is
therefore concerned with whether the
Respondents acted in accordance with the
Selection Policy, whether the directions of the
Appeals Panel were followed, whether relevant
considerations were taken into account, and
whether the prescribed mechanism for
resolving the tie was applied.
12.48. He submits that expertise in the field of sport
does not exempt the SFI from complying with
the rules framed by it. Once the Federation
prescribed the criteria and procedure for
selection, the Selection Committee was
required to act within that framework. Its
discretion was therefore structured by the
Policy and could not be treated as an
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
unrestricted power to adopt a different
methodology whenever the prescribed process
became difficult to apply.
12.49. Learned counsel further submits that the case
is therefore one of process and not sporting
merit. The Petitioner challenges the failure to
follow the declared selection procedure, the
failure to meaningfully consider a factor which
the Appeals Panel had expressly directed to be
considered, the failure to apply the prescribed
tie-break mechanism, and the subsequent
assumption of the selection function by the
Executive Council.
12.50. Learned counsel submits that the following
circumstances, taken together, vitiate the
impugned selection:
12.50.1. the Appeals Panel had directed a fresh
selection in accordance with the
Selection Policy and had specifically
required the relevant international
performances from 01.01.2025 to be
considered;
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
12.50.2. the Petitioner had secured a Bronze
Medal in the Asian Surfing
Championship, 2025, which was
therefore a relevant performance
requiring consideration;
12.50.3. the Selection Committee acknowledged
the importance of the Asian
Championship performance but did not
give a clear account of how it was
evaluated;
12.50.4. the Policy prescribed objective tie-break
criteria, and the General Secretary's
clarification placed those criteria before a
Surf-Off in the sequence of decision-
making;
12.50.5. the Special Selection Committee did not
complete the prescribed tie-break
exercise;
12.50.6. the Committee remained divided on the
methodology and ultimately reached an
equal vote;
12.50.7. after the exit of one member, the
remaining members proceeded to
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
consider a Surf-Off without first
completing the prescribed process;
12.50.8. the Executive Council thereafter made
what was described as an “Executive
Call” and selected Respondent No.5,
although the Policy contemplated
ratification of the Selection Committee's
provisional selection; and
12.50.9. the Federation subsequently referred to
the relaxation provision of the MYAS
Directive, although the selection process
itself had not, according to the Petitioner,
been completed in accordance with the
governing Policy.
12.51. Learned counsel submits that these are not
isolated technical irregularities. They concern
the constitution of the decision-making process,
the criteria required to be considered, the
manner in which a tie was required to be
resolved, and the authority competent to make
the final selection. The cumulative effect,
according to learned counsel, is that the
Petitioner was not assessed in the manner
prescribed by the SFI's own Selection Policy.
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
12.52. He therefore submits that the selection of
Respondent No.5 as the second confirmed
athlete and the consequential placement of the
Petitioner as the first reserve are liable to be
set aside. The appropriate course, according to
learned counsel, would be to direct a fresh
exercise by the competent authority strictly in
accordance with Clause 5 of the Selection
Policy, the decision of the Appeals Panel dated
16.06.2026, the MYAS Directive dated
24.09.2025 and the sequential mechanism
clarified by the General Secretary.
12.53. In the alternative, if the material already
available before the Court demonstrates that
application of the prescribed objective criteria
and tie-break mechanism leads to a definite
result, learned counsel submits that the
authorities ought to give effect to that result in
accordance with the Policy.
12.54. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the
Petitioner does not seek a determination by this
Court that he is the better athlete. His case is
that the SFI had itself laid down the rules by
which the competing athletes were to be
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
assessed, and the tie was to be resolved.
Having framed those rules, the Respondents
were required to follow them. The departure
from that process, culminating in the selection
of Respondent No.5 through an “Executive Call”,
according to learned counsel, renders the
impugned selection unsustainable.
13. Sri.Ajay J. Nandalike., learned counsel for SFI would
submit that;
13.1. The selection of athletes to represent India in a
sporting event is primarily entrusted to the
concerned National Sports Federation. He refers
to the instructions issued by the Ministry of
Youth Affairs and Sports (“MYAS”) on
05.03.2025 and submits that the National
Sports Federation is responsible for the
selection of sportspersons for such international
competitions. According to him, the SFI, being
the National Sports Federation governing
surfing in India, is therefore the competent
body to undertake the selection of athletes for
the Asian Games.
13.2. The composition of the Selection Committee is
also to be determined within the framework
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
applicable to the National Sports Federation
and, according to the SFI, the President of the
Federation has the authority in that regard. He
submits that the selection of the athletes who
will represent India, as well as the identification
of reserve athletes, is therefore a matter
entrusted to the SFI and its duly constituted
Selection Committee.
13.3. Learned counsel submits that selection in sport
involves an assessment of several factors and
cannot be reduced to one particular
performance or one isolated criterion. The
assessment may include an athlete's past and
recent performance, ranking, consistency,
technical ability, performance in different
competitions and overall suitability to represent
the country. These are matters within the
expertise of the sporting federation and its
Selection Committee.
13.4. On this basis, learned counsel submits that the
scope of judicial review in such matters is
limited. According to him, the Court is not
expected to sit as an appellate authority over
the sporting body or re-assess the comparative
sporting abilities of two athletes. Unless the
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
selection is shown to be contrary to the
applicable rules, arbitrary, mala fide or
otherwise legally unsustainable, the assessment
made by the expert body ought not to be
substituted by the Court's own assessment.
13.5. Learned counsel submits that the earlier
Selection Committee had also assessed the
competing athletes and had recommended Mr.
Kishore Kumar and Respondent No.5 as the
athletes constituting the strongest team for the
2026 Asian Games. Mr. Srikanth D. and the
Petitioner were, according to the earlier
recommendation, placed in the reserve
positions.
13.6. He submits that the subsequent Selection
Committee, though constituted pursuant to the
directions of the Appeals Panel, also arrived at
a broadly similar assessment as regards the
relative standing of the athletes. While Mr.
Kishore Kumar was selected as the first
confirmed athlete and Mr. Srikanth D. was
placed as a reserve, Respondent No.5 was
ultimately selected as the second confirmed
athlete and the Petitioner was placed as the
first reserve. According to learned counsel, the
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
fact that two selection exercises have assessed
the relative standing of the athletes in
substantially the same manner is a relevant
circumstance which supports the ultimate
selection made by the SFI.
13.7. Learned counsel further submits that the
Petitioner cannot rely upon the views expressed
by Ms. Nitisha Sethia as establishing that the
selection process was defective. According to
the SFI, Ms. Nitisha Sethia was associated with
Surf Kerala, the same State association with
which the Petitioner is associated. It is
therefore contended that her views concerning
the Petitioner's candidature have to be
considered in that background. Learned counsel
submits that her observations, particularly
when she expressed reservations regarding the
methodology and subsequently exited the
meeting, cannot by themselves be treated as
conclusive proof that the selection process was
unfair or that the Petitioner ought to have been
selected.
13.8. As regards the email dated 21.06.2026 sent by
the General Secretary of the SFI, learned
counsel submits that no adverse inference can
- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
be drawn from the same. According to him, the
General Secretary did not make a selection or
determine the relative position of the Petitioner
and Respondent No.5. The communication
merely set out the possible courses of action
available to the Special Selection Committee for
resolving the deadlock. The ultimate decision
remained with the Special Selection Committee.
13.9. Learned counsel submits that the General
Secretary's clarification in fact emphasised the
need for objective criteria and transparency. It
did not direct the Committee to select either of
the competing athletes. The Committee was
required to consider the objective material and
arrive at its own decision. Therefore, according
to learned counsel, the subsequent reliance
placed by the Petitioner upon the General
Secretary's communication as though it
constituted a binding direction to follow one
particular course is misplaced.
13.10. Learned counsel submits that, despite the
efforts of the Special Selection Committee, the
deadlock between the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5 continued on 21.06.2026. The
matter had to be resolved urgently because the
- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
SFI was required to communicate the names of
the Indian surfing squad within the time
prescribed for the Asian Games.
13.11. He submits that, on 22.06.2026, the SFI
informed the Indian Olympic Association about
the deadlock in the Special Selection
Committee and requested that a Surf-Off be
organised between the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5. The SFI also sought the
maximum possible extension of time for
resolving the issue through that mechanism.
13.12. Learned counsel submits that no response was
received to the communication sent by the SFI
at about 3.45 p.m. on 22.06.2026. In those
circumstances, and having regard to the
impending deadline, the SFI proceeded to
forward the names of the selected athletes on
23.06.2026. According to learned counsel, this
was done to ensure that India did not lose an
available quota position or its representation in
the surfing events at the Asian Games.
13.13. He submits that the action of the Executive
Council has to be understood in this context.
The decision was taken to protect the interests
- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
of Indian surfing and, more importantly, to
ensure that India was represented in the event.
According to learned counsel, the Executive
Council was therefore acting in a situation
where a decision had to be communicated
within a short period and where failure to do so
could have resulted in India losing the
opportunity to nominate an athlete.
13.14. Learned counsel submits that the selection was
not based solely upon one competition or one
recent result. The comparative standing of the
Petitioner and Respondent No.5 over a number
of years was also considered. According to the
material relied upon by the SFI, the Petitioner
was ranked second in India in 2022, while
Respondent No.5 was ranked twelfth. In 2023,
the Petitioner continued to be ranked second,
while Respondent No.5 improved to fourth. In
2024, the Petitioner was ranked first and
Respondent No.5 sixth. In 2025, Respondent
No.5 improved to second position while the
Petitioner was ranked fourth. In 2026,
Respondent No.5 was jointly ranked first along
with Mr. Kishore Kumar, while the Petitioner was
ranked fourth.
- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
13.15. Learned counsel submits that the above
progression was relevant to the assessment of
the two athletes. According to the SFI,
Respondent No.5 had shown a consistent
improvement in his national ranking during
2025 and 2026 and, by the time of the
selection, stood ahead of the Petitioner in the
relevant ranking. The SFI therefore considered
the recent performance and ranking position of
Respondent No.5 as supporting his selection for
the confirmed position.
13.16. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner
seeks to place considerable reliance upon his
Bronze Medal in the Asian Surfing
Championship, 2025. According to the SFI, that
achievement was taken into account, but the
Federation did not consider it to be conclusive
of the selection. The selection had to be based
upon the overall record of the athletes and not
upon a single achievement, however significant.
13.17. He submits that the Appeals Panel had itself not
prescribed any fixed numerical weight for the
Asian Surfing Championship performance.
Therefore, according to learned counsel, the
absence of a particular mathematical advantage
- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
to the Petitioner on account of the Bronze
Medal cannot by itself render the final selection
invalid. The relevant question is whether the
overall performance record was considered, and
the SFI's case is that it was.
13.18. Learned counsel further submits that there is,
even now, a practical means of resolving the
dispute between the two athletes. The SFI has
filed a memo stating that it remains willing to
conduct a Surf-Off between the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5, since both athletes are
presently undergoing training at the National
Training Camp.
13.19. According to learned counsel, such a Surf-Off
would provide a direct and contemporaneous
assessment of the two athletes and would
remove the uncertainty which has arisen from
the competing interpretations of the historical
performance data. He submits that the SFI is
willing to conduct the Surf-Off in accordance
with a transparent procedure and to select the
winner as the athlete to occupy the confirmed
position, subject to the directions of this Court.
- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
13.20. Learned counsel further submits that the
Petitioner's apprehension regarding the
neutrality of such a Surf-Off can also be
addressed. The SFI is willing to constitute an
independent panel of International Judges for
the purpose of conducting and evaluating the
Surf-Off. According to learned counsel, the
constitution of such an independent panel
would ensure that neither athlete has any
reasonable apprehension of bias and that the
result is determined solely on the basis of
performance in the event.
13.21. Learned counsel therefore submits that the
proposal for a Surf-Off is not intended to
undermine the Selection Policy but is offered as
a practical means of resolving the continuing
deadlock between two athletes who, according
to the SFI, have both demonstrated sufficient
merit to be considered for the position.
13.22. Learned counsel reiterates that the Court ought
not to substitute its assessment for that of the
SFI merely because another view of the
sporting merits is possible. The Federation is
the body entrusted with the selection of
athletes and possesses the necessary sporting
- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
expertise to assess their relative suitability.
Judicial review, according to him, should remain
confined to examining whether there has been
a violation of the governing rules or a decision
which is arbitrary, mala fide or otherwise legally
impermissible.
13.23. He submits that the present case does not
disclose such a situation. The SFI had
constituted a Selection Committee, considered
the performance and ranking of the athletes,
attempted to resolve the deadlock, sought
clarification from its General Secretary,
informed the Indian Olympic Association of the
position, sought additional time for a Surf-Off
and, when no response was received within the
available time, proceeded to communicate the
names so that India's representation would not
be jeopardised.
13.24. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the
selection of Respondent No.5 as the second
confirmed athlete and the placement of the
Petitioner as the first reserve ought not to be
interfered with. In the alternative, and without
prejudice to the above submissions, he submits
that if this Court considers that the continuing
- 48 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
deadlock requires an independent resolution,
the SFI is willing to conduct a Surf-Off between
the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 under the
supervision of an independent International
Judges' Panel and to abide by the result
thereof.
13.25. On question of law, he relies upon Ishwar
1
Singh v. State of Rajasthan , more
particularly para 10 and 12 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
10. In Collins English Dictionary the word
“delegate” has been stated to be a person who is
chosen to vote or make decisions on behalf of
a group of other people . If you delegate
duties, responsibilities or power to someone,
you give them those duties, those
responsibilities, or that power so that they can
act on your behalf . If you are delegated to do
something you are given the duty of acting on
someone else's behalf by making decisions, voting,
or doing some particular work.
12. According to Venkataramaiya's Law Lexicon,
“ delegation” as the word generally used does
not imply a parting with powers by the person
who grants the delegation, but points rather
to a conferring of an authority to do things
which otherwise the person would have to do
himself .
13.26. Relying on Ishwar Singh his submission is
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained
1
(2005) 2 SCC 334
- 49 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
that delegation involves conferring authority
upon another to act on behalf of the principal
and does not ordinarily amount to a complete
parting with the underlying power.
13.27. Relying upon the said principle, learned counsel
submits that the Special Selection Committee
was a delegate of the SFI, constituted to
undertake the selection exercise. Its
constitution did not result in the SFI losing its
ultimate authority over the selection of
athletes.
13.28. He submits that the Special Selection
Committee failed to arrive at either a
unanimous or majority decision regarding the
Petitioner and Respondent No.5 and recorded a
deadlock. In such circumstances, the failure of
the delegate to arrive at a decision did not
extinguish the authority of the principal. The
SFI, through its Executive Council, was entitled
to exercise the power retained by it and bring
the selection process to a conclusion.
13.29. Learned counsel submits that the Executive
Council's decision was therefore not an
assumption of a power belonging exclusively to
- 50 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
the Special Selection Committee. It was an
exercise of the authority of the principal after
the delegate had failed to reach a decision. The
expression “ratification” in the Selection Policy,
according to him, cannot be read as completely
excluding the SFI's retained power to act where
the Selection Committee is unable to arrive at a
decision.
13.30. He further submits that the Executive Council's
decision must be viewed in the context of the
urgent deadline for communicating the names
to the Indian Olympic Association. The SFI
could not risk losing India's quota or
representation in the Asian Games merely
because the delegated Committee remained
deadlocked.
13.31. Learned counsel therefore submits that,
applying the principle in Ishwar Singh , the
Special Selection Committee's role was one of
delegated authority and not an exclusive
transfer of the SFI's power. The deadlock before
the delegate left the matter unresolved but did
not deprive the principal of its authority to
decide. The Executive Council was consequently
- 51 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
competent to take the final decision in the
circumstances of the present case.
13.32. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Swastika Ghosh v. Table Tennis
2
Federation of India , more particularly para
12 to 18 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for your reference;
12. A perusal of the above order makes it clear
that the Committee of Administrators was
entrusted with all the powers and duties of
functioning of the Federation. The Committee of
Administrators has minutely examined the claim
of each of the sportsperson and passed a detailed
order while finalising the list, which is under
challenge. The power of judicial review in the
matters relating to sports can be exercised
only if there is an allegation of bad faith. In
such matters, the courts should give great
credence to the decision of the Expert
Committee and the coaches . If the courts
starts interfering in the decision of such
Committees it would have a drastic inhibiting
effect on its functioning. The scope of power of
judicial review was also laid down by the Supreme
court in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal [State of U.P. v.
Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714] wherein it was held
that the scope and extent of power of the judicial
review of the High Court contained in Article 226
of the Constitution of India would vary from case
to case, the nature of the order, the relevant
statute as also the other relevant factors including
the nature of power exercised by the public
authorities, namely, whether the power is
statutory, quasi-judicial or administrative. It was
2
2022 SCC Online Del 1817
- 52 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
held that the power of judicial review is not
intended to assume a supervisory role or don
the robes of omnipresent or to review
governance under the rule of law or to enable the
courts to step into the areas exclusively reserved
by the suprema lex to the other organs of the
State. It was expressly observed that an order
passed by an administrative authority
exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be
interfered in judicial review unless it is
shown that exercise of discretion itself is
perverse or illegal .
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 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
- 53 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
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 review only to
prevent manifest arbitrary or mala fide action.
Beyond this narrow scope of enquiry, courts do
- 54 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
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).
- 55 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
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
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
- 56 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
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.
17. The court has to take into account that the
Selection Committee/Expert Committee has to
take account numerous factors while taking
decision of selecting sportsperson to represent the
country. This exercise cannot be as simple as
comparing scores based on individual
performances. In the present case also Committee
of Administrator has weighed different factors and
therefore, this Court finds itself unable to interfere
in exercise of its power of judicial review. This
Court also finds complete absence of any
arbitrariness or mala fide in the decision arrived at
by the Committee of Administrators.
18. To represent a nation and to participate,
perform and excel in the arena of international
sports, a player must not only possess physical
but great mental and emotional strength and
agility. It is thus pivotal that there should be no
uncertainty in the minds of the players. Such
litigations may disrupt and impact the preparation
and performance of the players.
13.33. By relying on Swastika Ghosh’s case, learned
counsel submits that the scope of judicial
- 57 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
review in matters concerning selection of
sportspersons is extremely limited. The choice
of an athlete to represent the country is
primarily a matter for the National Sports
Federation and its Selection Committee, which
possess the necessary expertise to assess the
relative merits and suitability of the athletes.
The Court should not substitute its own
assessment for that of the expert body.
13.34. He submits that judicial review in such matters
is warranted only where the decision is shown
to be arbitrary, perverse, mala fide or otherwise
illegal. The Court is not required to examine
whether another view on the sporting merits is
possible.
13.35. He submits that the Court should also bear in
mind that selection of an athlete cannot
ordinarily be based upon one isolated
performance. The expert body is entitled to
consider the athlete's performance across
different competitions, consistency, current
form and other relevant circumstances. A single
performance cannot, by itself, determine the
selection.
- 58 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
13.36. Learned counsel further submits that selection
of athletes involves consideration of several
factors which cannot always be reduced to a
simple comparison of scores. The Selection
Committee may consider the overall
performance of the athletes and other practical
and sporting factors relevant to their ability to
represent the country at an international event.
13.37. He therefore submits that the present case
does not warrant interference under Article 226
of the Constitution. The SFI and its Selection
Committee considered the performance and
ranking of the Petitioner and Respondent No.5
and arrived at a decision within their area of
expertise. Unless the Petitioner establishes that
the decision is manifestly arbitrary, perverse,
mala fide or contrary to the governing rules,
this Court ought not to re-appreciate the
comparative merits of the two athletes.
13.38. Learned counsel submits that the principle of
judicial restraint is particularly important in the
present case since the selection concerns
India's representation at an international
sporting event. Uncertainty arising from
- 59 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
prolonged litigation may also affect the
preparation and performance of the athletes.
13.39. He accordingly submits that the Court's enquiry
should remain confined to the legality and
fairness of the decision-making process and
should not extend to determining whether the
Petitioner or Respondent No.5 is the better
surfer. On the material placed before the Court,
according to learned counsel, there is no such
arbitrariness, perversity or mala fides as would
justify interference with the selection.
13.40. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in Anush Agarwalla vs. Ad-hoc
Committee for Governance of Equestrian
3
Federation of India , more particularly 56
thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference;
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.
3
LPA 458/2026 dated 06.07.2026
- 60 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
13.41. By relying on Anush Agarwalla , his
submission is that, while considering the
selection process for an international sporting
event, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court took note of
the proximity of the deadline and held that
conducting a fresh competition within the
limited time available was logistically
impracticable.
13.42. Learned counsel submits that the present
proceedings have to be considered in the
context of the deadline for submission of the
names for the Asian Games. The names having
already been forwarded by the SFI to the
Indian Olympic Association, and the prescribed
deadline having elapsed, according to him, no
effective relief can now be granted in the
present proceedings and the petition has
consequently become infructuous.
13.43. Learned counsel further submits that the
decision in Anush Agarwalla was carried in
appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SLP No.22940/2026. According to him, though
notice was issued, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
did not grant interim relief so as to disturb the
selection process. He submits that this also
- 61 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
indicates the need for judicial restraint in
matters concerning selection by a National
Sports Federation, particularly where the
sporting event is imminent and the selection
process has already progressed.
13.44. He therefore submits that, having regard to the
completed selection process, the forwarding of
the names and the proximity of the Asian
Games, the Court ought not to reopen the
selection or direct a fresh selection exercise at
this stage.
13.45. On these grounds, he submits that the above
writ petition is required to be dismissed.
14. Sri.Snehil Balani., learned counsel for Respondent
No.3 submits that;
14.1. Respondent No.3 has nothing to do with the
matter. Respondent No.3 being the Indian
Olympic Association receives the
recommendation of selection made by the
National Federation and forwards it to the Asian
Olympic Association, who uploads it onto the
web portal.
- 62 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
14.2. In this matter, the list of selected candidates
having been received by the Indian Olympic
Association has been forwarded to the Asian
Olympic Association and those names have
been uploaded, no further order can be passed.
14.3. He relies on the calendar of events of the Asian
Games and submit that the last date was
01.07.2026 for entry by name. Though it had
been extended to 06.07.2026, the same was
informed to Indian Olympic Association only on
05.07.2026 and as such there was no time to
consider any other method of removing the
deadlock. The action taken by Indian Olympic
Association is proper and correct and to
establish that the names of the athletes have
been uploaded, he refers to Annexure-E which
contains a printout of the shortlist report of the
th
20 Asian Games for Surfing.
14.4. On enquiry with Sri.Snehil Balani., learned
counsel as to whether the procedure has been
followed, his submission is that he has no
instructions as regards any particular aspect
not having been followed.
- 63 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
15. Sri.Abhilash.R., learned counsel for Sports Authority
of India also makes a similar submission and submits
that Sports Authority of India has nothing to do with
the selection of any athlete. The entire selection is at
the discretion of the National Federation, viz., the
Surfing Federation of India.
16. Sri.Keshav M.Datar, learned counsel who appears for
Respondent No.1-Union of India, also makes similar
submission and submits that the Union of India has
nothing to do with the selection criteria. On enquiry
with Sri. Keshav M. Datar regarding the view of
Respondent No.1 as to whether the SFI had followed
the procedure prescribed under the Selection Policy,
he submitted that he had no instructions in that
regard.
17. Sri. P.N. Manmohan, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner in reply submitted:
17.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Respondents cannot seek to avoid judicial
scrutiny merely on the ground that the
selection process has been completed or that
the names have already been forwarded to the
Indian Olympic Association.
- 64 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
17.2. He relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in Manjeet vs. Indian Olympic
4
Association (IOA) and Ors. , more
particularly para 33, 45, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57,
58 and 59 thereof which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference;
33. The Olympic Games represent the pinnacle of
international sport. It is not merely a sports competition but
a culmination of years of discipline, sacrifice, and hard
work. The process by which athletes are selected to
represent the country should reflect the highest standards
of procedural fairness. For most athletes, there may be only
one, at best two, Olympic Games in an entire lifetime where
they have the opportunity to compete; an opportunity
earned through years of relentless discipline, sacrifice, and
unwavering commitment. A sporting career is fleeting by
nature, where the athlete's peak performance is confined to
a narrow and irreplaceable window of time.
45 . Selection to represent the country at the Olympic
Games is not an internal administrative exercise; it is
a matter of national representation . Processes that
disregard merit and transparency not only cause grave
prejudice to individual athletes, who invest years of
discipline and sacrifice, but also place the credibility of the
nation's sporting institutions at stake. The IOA along with
its committees cannot start acting as a Super Selector
and go beyond the four corners of its authority and
create criteria for selection which do not exist in the
Qualification System which is binding upon the
Respondents .
50 . The Ad-hoc Committee proceeded to apply selection
criteria that are not traceable to any provision of the
governing international qualification documents. The record
reveals that athletes were assessed and excluded on
the basis of conditions i.e., participation in World
championship, which do not find mention in the FIS
Qualification System . Such an approach strikes at the
very foundation of a rule-based selection process.
4
dated 30.01.2026 in W.P.(C) No.936/2026 in CM Appeal.4593 of 2026
- 65 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
51. Further, during the course of hearing, a stand has been
taken by the Respondents that the relief sought in the
present petition has become infructuous on the
ground that the last date for forwarding the list of
athletes was 26.01.2026 . Reliance has also been placed
on Clause 2.7.6 of the NOC Accreditation & Sport Entries
Manual, relating to arrival in Italy and PVC validation.
53. Equally disheartening is the casual and cavalier manner
in which the Respondents have responded to the directions
of this Court. Despite the acknowledged urgency of the
matter, and notwithstanding the fact that Olympic selection
directly implicates national representation in the
international arena, the Respondents appear oblivious to
the gravity of their responsibility and irresponsibility of their
actions.
54. At this juncture it becomes necessary to observe that
Athletes competing at international fora do not represent
themselves alone; they represent our nation. The manner
in which the Respondents have conducted themselves
conveys an impression of institutional indifference to merit
and excellence, as though mediocrity in international
competition were an acceptable outcome. Talent, no matter
how exceptional, can only flourish when supported by
transparent, fair, and accountable institutions. In global
sporting events, it is not merely the athlete but the country
itself that is under observation.
56. In view of the above, it is held that the selection
process is manifestly arbitrary and unfair, and
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have failed in their duty as
the Supervisory body . Hence, the prayer A and B are
allowed.
57. Although this Court has taken note of the Respondents'
submission that the impugned selection process has
culminated and that consequential arrangements
have already been acted upon , however, since
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have failed in their duty towards
the Petitioner, Respondent No. 3 is directed to try and make
all reasonable efforts to ensure that the Petitioner is
permitted to participate in the XXV Olympic Winter Games,
Milano Cortina 2026. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are also
directed that they shall take immediate steps to provide full
support to Respondent No. 3 in making necessary
arrangements.
- 66 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
58. This Court is of the view that inaction, arbitrariness, or
unfair treatment on the part of administrative authorities
cannot be permitted to operate as an impediment to the
recognition of merit of Indian athletes, nor can it be allowed
to deprive them of a legitimate opportunity to represent the
nation at the XXV Olympic Winter Games, Milano Cortina
2026.
59. This Court also expresses its displeasure at the stand
adopted by Respondent No. 3, the Ministry. As the
repository of public trust and the nodal authority overseeing
sports administration, Respondent No. 3 is duty-bound to
ensure that the selection process is fair, transparent, and
merit-based. The Ministry cannot act as a mute spectator or
distance itself from the legitimate grievances and hardships
faced by athletes, whose careers and once-in-a-lifetime
opportunities depend upon institutional accountability and
adherence to rules and regulations. The State and its
instrumentalities are expected to act fairly, reasonably and
ensure transparency at all levels.
17.3. By relying on Manjeet’s case, his submission is
that the Respondents cannot wash off their
responsibility and blame the SFI.
17.4. Learned Counsel submits that the said decision
recognises that selection of an athlete to
represent the country at an international
sporting event is not merely an internal
administrative matter. It directly concerns
national representation and, therefore, the
selection process must meet the requirements
of fairness, transparency and adherence to the
governing rules.
- 67 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
17.5. Relying upon paragraph 45 of Manjeet , he
submits that the sports authorities and their
committees cannot assume the role of a “Super
Selector” or introduce criteria which are not
contained in the governing qualification or
selection framework. The selection authority
must remain within the four corners of the rules
governing the selection.
17.6. Learned Counsel submits that the same
principle applies with greater force in the
present case. The SFI itself framed the
Selection Policy prescribing the manner in
which the athletes were to be assessed and the
manner in which a tie was to be resolved.
Having prescribed those criteria, the SFI could
not subsequently adopt a different methodology
or permit the Executive Council to make an
independent selection merely because the
Selection Committee was unable to reach a
decision.
17.7. He further submits that the decision in Manjeet
also answers the contention that the petition
has become infructuous merely because the
names have already been forwarded. In that
case also, the Respondents contended that the
- 68 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
relief had become infructuous since the last
date for forwarding the names had expired.
Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to examine
the legality of the selection process and granted
consequential directions.
17.8. Learned Counsel submits that the forwarding of
the names by the SFI, therefore, cannot create
a fait accompli or defeat the jurisdiction of this
Court. If the underlying selection is found to be
arbitrary or contrary to the governing rules,
consequential steps already taken cannot be
relied upon to prevent the Court from granting
appropriate relief.
17.9. He submits that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Manjeet also emphasised the seriousness of
the responsibility borne by sports authorities in
matters concerning international
representation. Athletes represent the country
and invest years of training and sacrifice for the
opportunity to participate in such events. The
authorities are consequently required to act
with fairness, transparency and accountability.
17.10. Learned Counsel further submits that, where
the selection process is found to be manifestly
- 69 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
arbitrary or unfair, the Court is not powerless
merely because consequential arrangements
have already been made. In Manjeet , despite
noting that the selection process had
culminated, and consequential arrangements
had been acted upon, the Court directed the
authorities to make all reasonable efforts to
enable the Petitioner to participate in the
Olympic Games.
17.11. He therefore submits that the Respondents
cannot take advantage of their own subsequent
actions. If the selection process was completed
in a manner contrary to the governing Selection
Policy, the forwarding of the names cannot
validate the selection. Nor can the urgency of
the situation be relied upon to justify departure
from the prescribed procedure.
17.12. Learned Counsel accordingly submits that the
principle of judicial restraint in sporting matters
does not mean that the Court must refrain from
examining a selection process which is contrary
to the governing rules. The Court may not
substitute its own view on sporting merit, but it
can certainly examine whether the decision-
making process was fair, transparent, rational
- 70 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
and consistent with the applicable Selection
Policy.
17.13. He submits that the present case is therefore
distinguishable from a mere challenge to the
comparative sporting assessment of two
athletes. The Petitioner's grievance is that the
Respondents did not follow the selection
mechanism which they themselves had
prescribed, failed to give proper effect to the
directions of the Appeals Panel, did not
complete the prescribed tie-break process and
thereafter permitted the Executive Council to
determine the selection.
17.14. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the
Respondents cannot wash off their
responsibility by placing the entire matter on
the SFI or on the Selection Committee. The SFI
is itself the authority which framed the
Selection Policy, constituted the Selection
Committee and ultimately communicated the
names. Its responsibility is consequently to
ensure that the entire selection process
conforms to the governing framework. The
principle stated in Manjeet , according to
learned Counsel, reinforces that the authorities
- 71 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
entrusted with sporting administration cannot
distance themselves from the fairness and
legality of the selection process.
17.15. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the present case is not a case of a mere
disagreement with the sporting assessment of
the SFI. The selection process has, according to
him, departed from the SFI's own Selection
Policy at successive stages, and the impugned
selection is therefore vitiated by procedural
illegality.
17.16. He submits that the first departure occurred in
the original selection process, which was
challenged before the Appeals Panel. The
Appeals Panel, upon examining the matter, set
aside the selection and directed the SFI to
undertake a fresh selection in accordance with
the Selection Policy and the directions
contained in its order.
17.17. The second departure, according to learned
Counsel, occurred in the fresh selection
process. The Special Selection Committee
reached a deadlock between the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5 without first completing the
- 72 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
selection exercise in the manner contemplated
by the Policy, including the prescribed objective
criteria and tie-break mechanism.
17.18. The third and more significant departure
occurred after the General Secretary of the SFI
furnished his clarification dated 21.06.2026.
The General Secretary indicated the sequence
for considering the matter, which included
applying the objective criteria and the tie-break
mechanism under the Policy before resorting to
a Surf-Off. Despite this clarification, the Special
Selection Committee did not complete the
prescribed tie-break exercise and proceeded
towards a Surf-Off.
17.19. Learned Counsel submits that the position
became still more serious after Ms. Nitisha
Sethia resigned from the Committee. Despite
the resignation and the consequent change in
the composition of the Committee, the
remaining members proceeded with further
deliberations and ultimately recommended a
Surf-Off. According to him, the Committee
thereby proceeded to the last suggested course
without first exhausting the mechanism
expressly prescribed by the Policy.
- 73 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
17.20. He submits that the Executive Council
thereafter committed a further and independent
departure from the Policy. The Selection
Committee had not arrived at a concluded
selection between the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5. Nevertheless, the Executive
Council itself selected Respondent No.5 and
forwarded the names to the Indian Olympic
Association. According to learned Counsel, the
Executive Council's role under the Policy was
not to substitute its own selection for that of
the Selection Committee, and therefore the
“Executive Call” could not cure the failure of the
prescribed selection process.
17.21. Learned Counsel submits that the involvement
of the IOA and the SAI also requires
consideration. Even assuming that the SFI had
sought additional time from the IOA, the IOA
was aware of the impending deadline and ought
to have responded to the SFI's communication
dated 22.06.2026 seeking time for resolving
the deadlock. According to him, the IOA could
not remain a passive spectator when the
selection process itself had become disputed
and the SFI had sought its intervention.
- 74 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
17.22. He submits that the deadline for submission of
names was known to all the concerned
authorities, namely, the SFI, IOA and SAI. It
was therefore incumbent upon the authorities
responsible for the process to act sufficiently in
advance and ensure that the selection was
completed in accordance with the governing
Policy. Any delay or failure on their part,
according to learned Counsel, cannot be
permitted to operate to the prejudice of the
Petitioner, who has spent years preparing and
competing for an opportunity to represent the
country.
17.23. Learned Counsel submits that the Respondents
cannot rely upon their own administrative
urgency to justify a departure from the
Selection Policy. If the authorities were faced
with a deadline, they were required to resolve
the matter within the framework of the Policy or
obtain appropriate directions from the
competent authority. The resulting time
constraint cannot retrospectively validate a
selection which was not completed in
accordance with the prescribed procedure.
- 75 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
17.24. As regards the proposal for a Surf-Off, learned
Counsel submits that the Petitioner has
objection to participating in a Surf-Off as such.
His objection is to the manner in which it is
sought to be introduced. The Petitioner seeks
implementation of the Selection Policy as it
stands and does not seek any alteration of the
prescribed procedure merely because a
particular method may now appear convenient.
17.25. He submits that even the clarification of the
General Secretary contemplated the Surf-Off
only after the objective assessment and the
prescribed tie-break mechanism had been
considered. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be
compelled to accept the Surf-Off as a substitute
for the tie-break mechanism when the latter
has never been properly applied.
17.26. Learned Counsel further submits that the
communication addressed by the SFI to the IOA
itself demonstrates the difficulty in the
Respondents' approach. Instead of stating that
the prescribed tie-break mechanism would first
be completed and, if necessary, a Surf-Off
would thereafter be conducted, the
communication proceeded directly to the
- 76 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
proposal for a Surf-Off. According to him, this
indicates that the Respondents had already
decided upon the mechanism to be adopted
without first completing the process mandated
by the Selection Policy.
17.27. He submits that the Court need not determine
whether the Petitioner or Respondent No.5 is
the better surfer. The limited question is
whether the selection has been made in
accordance with the rules governing the
selection. If the prescribed tie-break
mechanism has not been applied, the ultimate
selection cannot be sustained merely because
the authorities consider Respondent No.5 to be
a suitable athlete.
17.28. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the writ
petition deserves to be allowed, and the
Respondents ought to be directed to implement
the tie-break mechanism contained in the
Selection Policy, as clarified by the General
Secretary, and thereafter take a consequential
decision in accordance with the result of that
exercise. The Petitioner, according to him, seeks
no special treatment; he seeks only that the
- 77 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
same rules which governed the selection
process be applied to both competing athletes.
18. Heard Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned Counsel for
Sri.Vinay.N, learned counsel for the Petitioner,
Sri.Keshav M.Datar, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1, Sri.Abhilash.R, learned counsel for Respondent
No.2, Sri.Snehil Balani, learned counsel for
Respondent No.3 and Sri.Ajay J.Nandalike, learned
counsel for Respondent No.4. Perused papers.
19. For the purpose of consideration, it is the Selection
Policy which is of paramount importance. The
Selection Policy in its entirety is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference;
Asian Games Selection Policy
Written By Surfing Federation of India
Surfing Federation of India (SFI)
Selection Policy for the 20th Asian Games Aichi-Nagoya 2026
1. Purpose & Scope
This policy governs identification, trials, training, selection,
replacement, and nomination of Indian surfers for the 20th
Asian Games 2026. It applies to all athletes, coaches,
officials, and selectors operating under SFI. The policy will be
hosted on SFI's website and remains effective until the Asian
Games 2026 delegation is finalized.
2. Legal & Regulatory Alignment
•
Selections and camps will comply with:
- 78 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
•
National Sports Development Code of India (2011) and
subsequent directions.
•
MYAS/SAI reforms on selection transparency.
•
IOA/OCA entry protocols and event eligibility rules.
•
Asian Games 2026 sport/age eligibility as notified.
•
NADA/WADA anti-doping compliance.
3. Events & Quotas
India has 2 athlete slots in Men's Open Shortboard and 2
athlete slots in Women's Open Shortboard at the Asian
Games 2026.
SFI will select athletes only for events confirmed by
ASF/AGOC/IOA and for which India holds quota/eligibility via
ASF qualifiers.
4. Definitions
Ranking List: SFI National Ranking (Open Men/Women) as
published on the SFI website.
Cut-off Date: 30 September 2025.
HPD: SFI High Performance Director.
Selection Committee (SC): Committee constituted under
Section 10.5.
5. Selection Pathway (Modules & Timelines)
Module 1 - Eligibility Pool (Ranking Gate)
1. As of 30 September 2025, the Top-8 Men and Top-8
Women in SFI National Rankings (LiveHeats) form the
Selection Pool.
2. Ties at #8 resolved by: (i) head-to-head in 2025 events,
(ii) higher best single-event points, (iii) second-best single-
event, (iv) coin toss in presence of SC and recorded on video.
3. Eligibility conditions: Indian passport, IOA/OCA eligibility,
NADA compliance, signed agreements (Code of Conduct,
Media/Name & Likeness, Data Processing consent, Anti-
harassment & Safeguarding).
- 79 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Module 2 - Centralized 2-Day Assessment Camp (Top-
8)
•
Conducted no later than 31 March 2026 at an SFI-
approved venue.
•
Mandatory attendance unless medically exempt.
•
Components (all recorded on video/CCTV):
o
Performance heats (ISA/ASF/SFI scoring)
o
Technical drills
o Physical testing
o
Psychological/HP screening
o
Compliance briefing.
o
Weightings published 30 days before camp.
Indicative: Heats 50%, Tech 20%, Physical 15%,
HP/Psych 10%, Compliance 5%.
o Output: Objective composite scores; top performers
progress.
o
The selection pool can be reduced under the
discretion of the head coach and SFI selection
committee.
Module 3 - Reduction to Competition Squad + Bench
•
Based on Module-2 scores plus 2025 ranking points, SC
reduces the squad by 30 April 2026 to the following
numbers or lower as determined by the selection
committee:
o
Top-3 Men + up to 2 bench athletes
o
Top-3 Women + up to 2 bench athletes
•
Tie-breakers mirror Module-1.
•
Minutes and scorecards shared (data masked).
Module 4 - Team Camp & Qualification Alignment
•
The picked team (competition squad and bench
athletes) trains under National
- 80 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
•
Coaches/HPD from November 2025-September 2026,
including ASF qualifiers/required events.
•
Continued selection conditional on: fitness, form,
conduct, and compliance.
•
Internal surf-offs may be conducted by 15 July 2026 if
required.
Module 5 - Final Nomination & Submission
•
Provisional names approved by SC and ratified by SFI
EC by 20 July 2026.
•
Final names submitted to IOA no later than 1 August
2026.
•
Only 2 Men and 2 Women will be nominated to the
Asian Games (as per quota). Bench athletes may be
substituted in case of injury, withdrawal, or non-
compliance before final submission.
•
Selection Pool/Picked team (competition squad and
bench athletes) trains under National Coaches/HPD
from November 2025-September 2026, including ASF
qualifiers/required events as per the modules.
6. National Rankings (Feeder to Module-1)
•
SFI to publish the 2025 National Calendar & Points
Matrix in advance.
•
Event results will be posted within 7 days of conclusion.
7. Objective Metrics & Data Handling
•
Judging/scoring aligned with ISA/ASF criteria.
•
Trials recorded on video/CCTV; footage retained for 24
months.
•
Athlete data stored securely; only aggregated results
published.
8. Medical, Injury & Fitness
Pre-camp and pre-nomination medical fitness certificates
required.
Injury protocol:
- 81 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
•
Before Module-3: one fitness re-test allowed.
•
After Module-3: must regain fitness by 15 July 2026 or
be replaced by a bench athlete.
•
Therapeutic Use Exemptions must be lodged with NADA
in advance.
9. Conduct, Safeguarding & Anti-Doping
•
Athletes are bound by SFI Safeguarding and
Harassment policies.
•
Zero-tolerance for doping; any violation triggers
immediate suspension.
10. Governance: Selection Committee & Conflicts
•
Selection Committee: HPD (non-voting chair),
2 senior coaches, 1 athlete Representative, 1
external expert/judge, 1 legal/ethics observer
(non-voting).
•
Conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
•
Minutes recorded and public summary posted
within 7 days after decisions.
11. Appeals Mechanism
•
Grounds: procedural irregularity, scoring error,
undisclosed conflict.
•
Appeals within 72 hours of contested decision.
•
Appeals Panel: legal chair, independent HP expert,
athlete rep.
•
Remedies: confirm, re-tabulate, or re-trial specific
segments.
12. Replacement Policy
•
Athletes may be replaced with a bench athlete if: injury,
doping violation, code breach, ineligibility, or
withdrawal.
•
Replacement decisions documented and video-
announced.
- 82 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
13. Communication & Publishing
•
The announcement of the Selection policy shall be made
on the official website of Surfing Federation of India
before September 5th and any amendments
subsequently will be on the website.
•
Changes require dated addendum and notification to
MYAS/SAI/ΙΟΑ
14. Financial & Logistics
Participation in camps/trials funded per ACTC/SAI approvals
or SFI resources.
Any athlete co-pay will be published in advance.
15. Contingencies
•
If events are cancelled or ASF changes qualification, SFI
may adjust weightings or add a replacement trial with
15-day notice.
•
Trials may be extended for fair wave conditions; heat
seeding via serpentine draw.
16. Acceptance
•
All athletes entering Module-2 must sign acceptance of
this policy, SFI jurisdiction for selections, internal
appeals, and consent for video/data use.
17. Policy Revisions & External Factors
SFI reserves the right to amend or update this selection
policy to reflect changes in government regulations,
international federation guidelines, IOA/OCA
requirements, or unforeseen external circumstances.
Any changes will be communicated with fair notice to
athletes through the SFI website, official email, and
athlete WhatsApp/communication groups.
signed by,
- 83 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Selection Committee Chairperson
Rammohan Paranjape
Addendum 1:
SURFING FEDERATION OF INDIA
ADDENDUM TO THE ASIAN GAMES 2026 ATHLETE
SELECTION POLICY
Issued pursuant to IOA Communication dated 5th May
2026
Effective Date: 16th May 2026
RECITALS
WHEREAS the Surfing Federation of India (hereinafter
"SFI") has published an Asian Games 2026 Athlete
Selection Policy (hereinafter "the Selection Policy")
setting out the criteria and procedure for the selection
of athletes to represent India at the 2026 Asian Games;
AND WHEREAS the Indian Olympic Association
(hereinafter "IOA") has, via official communication
dated 5th May 2026, formally notified the SFI, inter
alia, of the following directives:
(i) That the Final List of athletes selected for
participation in the Asian Games is to be submitted to
the IOA no later than 10th June 2026;
(ii) That after 23rd June 2026, no changes to the
submitted list shall be accepted by the IOA without
supporting medical reason and documentary proof.
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to amend the Selection
Policy in order to align with the said IOA directives and
to give effect to the timelines communicated therein;
- 84 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
NOW, THEREFORE
In exercise of the authority vested in it, and in
furtherance of the above, the SFI hereby issues this
Addendum to the Selection Policy. Section 5 -Athlete
Selection Policy shall stand Module 5 of the Asian
Games 2026 amended and shall henceforth be read as
follows:
SECTION 5 - MODULE 5: AMENDED PROVISIONS
1. The final list of 2 (two) male athletes and 2 (two)
male reserves, and 2 (two) female athletes and 2 (two)
female reserves, shall be submitted to the IOA no later
than 5th June 2026.
2. Changes, if any, to the list of selected athletes or
reserves shall be submitted to the IOA no later than
20th June 2026.
3. The selection of athletes shall be made on the basis
of the following data and criteria, which are listed in no
particular order of priority or weightage:
•
Rankings from the National Surf Series 2026 as on 1st
June 2026, counting all competition results in 2026 with
no drop-off events;
•
Data and assessments from National Coaching Camps
and Selection Camps conducted between 22nd
September 2025 and 15th June 2026;
•
Results and performance at international competitions
during the relevant period, if any.
SAVINGS AND CONFLICT
All other sections and provisions of the Selection Policy
not expressly amended herein shall continue to remain
in full force and effect and shall be read and construed
in a manner consistent with the provisions of this
Addendum.
- 85 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between
any provision of the Selection Policy and this
Addendum, the provisions of this Addendum shall
prevail to the extent of such conflict.
Arun Vasu
President, Surfing Federation of India
Chairperson, Selection Committee
TRUE COPY
Date: 16th May 2026
20. The Points that would arise for Determination are:
(i) Whether the present writ petition is
maintainable and whether this Court can
examine the legality of the selection
process, notwithstanding that the names
of the selected athletes have already been
forwarded to the Indian Olympic
Association and the subsequent
authorities?
(ii) Whether the fresh selection process
complied with the SFI Selection Policy and
the directions of the Appeals Panel dated
16.06.2026, including consideration of the
relevant international performances from
01.01.2025 onwards?
(iii) Whether the Special Selection Committee
was justified in recommending a Surf-Off
without first completing the prescribed tie-
break process, particularly in view of the
clarification issued by the General
Secretary of the SFI?
- 86 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
(iv) Whether the Executive Council of the SFI
had the power to independently select
Respondent No.5 when the Special
Selection Committee had failed to arrive at
a decision?
(v) Whether the impugned selection of
Respondent No.5 and consequential
placement of the Petitioner as first reserve
are liable to be quashed, and, if so, what
relief should follow?
(vi) What order?
21. This Court answers the above points as follows:
22. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the present writ
petition is maintainable and whether this Court
can examine the legality of the selection
process, notwithstanding that the names of the
selected athletes have already been forwarded
to the Indian Olympic Association and the
subsequent authorities?
22.1. Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, did not, in his main submissions,
treat maintainability as a separate or
freestanding controversy. His principal case,
developed at length, was that the selection of
Respondent No.5 as the second confirmed
athlete and the consequent placement of the
Petitioner as the first reserve athlete was
reached by departing from the SFI's own
Selection Policy and from the directions of the
- 87 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Appeals Panel dated 16.06.2026. The question
of maintainability arose because the
Respondents, principally the SFI and the Indian
Olympic Association, sought to meet this
challenge on the threshold, by contending that
the writ petition had become infructuous once
the names were forwarded. It is this objection
that learned counsel for the Petitioner answered
in his reply.
22.2. Learned counsel submitted that the
Respondents cannot seek to avoid judicial
scrutiny merely on the ground that the
selection process has been completed or that
the names have already been forwarded to the
Indian Olympic Association. For this
proposition, he relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manjeet v. IOA
[W.P.(C) No.936/2026 in CM Appeal.4593 of
2026], more particularly paragraphs 33, 45, 50,
51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58 and 59 thereof.
22.3. He drew attention to paragraph 45 of Manjeet ,
where the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed
that selection to represent the country at a
major international event "is not an internal
- 88 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
administrative exercise; it is a matter of
national representation" and that the concerned
authorities "cannot start acting as a Super
Selector and go beyond the four corners of its
authority" (Paragraph 45). Learned counsel
submitted that this reasoning applies equally
where a National Sports Federation forwards
names to the Indian Olympic Association and
treats that act of forwarding as placing the
matter beyond judicial reach.
22.4. He further relied on paragraph 51 of Manjeet ,
where the Respondents in that case had also
taken the stand that the petition had become
infructuous because the last date for forwarding
names had passed, and on paragraphs 56 to
59, where the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
nevertheless went on to hold the selection
process to be arbitrary and granted
consequential directions notwithstanding that
the process had culminated and consequential
arrangements had already been acted upon
(Paragraph 57). Learned counsel submitted that
the forwarding of names, by itself, therefore
cannot create a fait accompli that defeats the
jurisdiction of this Court, and that if the
- 89 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
underlying selection is arbitrary or contrary to
the governing rules, the consequential steps
already taken cannot be relied upon to shut out
relief.
22.5. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the
writ petition is maintainable in its entirety, that
this Court is entitled to examine the legality of
the fresh selection process, the manner in
which the tie between the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5 was sought to be resolved,
and the propriety of the Executive Council's
intervention, regardless of the fact that the SFI
communicated the names on 23.06.2026 and
that the Sports Authority of India and the
Indian Olympic Association have since
forwarded those names further.
22.6. Sri Ajay J. Nandalike, learned counsel for the
SFI (Respondent No.4), submitted that the writ
petition has become infructuous. He pointed
out that the last date for entry by name for the
Asian Games was 01.07.2026, that this had
been extended only to 06.07.2026, that the SFI
accordingly proceeded to forward the names on
23.06.2026 once no response was received to
- 90 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
its communication of 22.06.2026, and that the
selection process must now be treated as
complete.
22.7. On the question of law, learned counsel relied
on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in Anush Agarwalla v. Ad-hoc
Committee for Governance of Equestrian
Federation of India [LPA 458/2026 dated
06.07.2026], more particularly paragraph 56
thereof, where it was observed that, having
regard to an impending deadline, it would be
"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"
(Paragraph 56). He submitted that the present
proceedings must be considered in like manner,
that the names having already been forwarded
and the prescribed deadline having elapsed, no
effective relief can now be granted, and the
petition has consequently become infructuous.
22.8. Learned counsel further submitted that the
decision in Anush Agarwalla was carried in
appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
- 91 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
No.22940/2026, and that although notice was
issued, no interim relief was granted so as to
disturb the selection under challenge in that
case. He submitted that this circumstance too
requires judicial restraint where the sporting
event is imminent and the selection process has
already progressed, and, on this cumulative
footing, submitted that the writ petition ought
to be dismissed as not maintainable in its
present form.
22.9. Sri.Snehil Balani, learned counsel for the Indian
Olympic Association (Respondent No.3),
submitted that Respondent No.3 has nothing to
do with the merits of the selection; it merely
receives the recommendation made by the
National Federation and forwards it to the Asian
Olympic Association, who in turn uploads the
names onto its portal. He submitted that the
list of selected candidates has already been
received by the Indian Olympic Association,
forwarded to the Asian Olympic Association,
and uploaded, and that "no further order can
be passed" once this has occurred. On the
calendar of events, he pointed out that the last
date was 01.07.2026, extended to 06.07.2026,
- 92 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
and that this extension was communicated to
the Indian Olympic Association only on
05.07.2026, leaving no time to consider any
other method of resolving the deadlock. On a
specific query from the Court as to whether the
procedure prescribed by the Selection Policy
had, in fact, been followed by the SFI, learned
counsel fairly stated that he had no instructions
on that aspect.
22.10. Sri.Abhilash R., learned counsel for the Sports
Authority of India (Respondent No.2), adopted
a similar position, submitting that the Sports
Authority of India has nothing to do with the
selection of any athlete, the entire exercise
being at the discretion of the SFI.
22.11. Sri.Keshav M. Datar, learned counsel for the
Union of India (Respondent No.1), likewise
submitted that the Union of India has nothing
to do with the selection criteria. On being asked
whether Respondent No.1 had a view on
whether the SFI had followed the procedure
prescribed under the Selection Policy, he too
stated that he had no instructions in that
regard.
- 93 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
22.12. This Point requires this Court to decide two
closely connected things before it can even
begin to look at whether the selection itself was
fairly and lawfully made. The first is whether a
writ petition of this kind, directed against the
decision of a National Sports Federation and the
consequential action of the Indian Olympic
Association and the Sports Authority of India, is
maintainable at all. The second, and the one on
which the entire argument before this Court in
fact turned, is whether the circumstance that
the names have already left the SFI's hands,
travelled to the Indian Olympic Association, and
from there to the Asian Olympic Association,
takes away this Court's power to go into the
legality of what happened before that
forwarding took place.
22.13. On the first of these two questions, it deserves
to be recorded plainly that none of the
Respondents, including the SFI, the Sports
Authority of India, the Indian Olympic
Association or the Union of India, disputed that
the SFI is a National Sports Federation
recognised by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and
Sports and is, in that capacity, amenable to the
- 94 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India when it performs a
public function such as selecting athletes to
represent the country. No submission was
advanced by the Respondents on this Point
questioning the amenability of the SFI, the
Sports Authority of India or the Indian Olympic
Association to this Court's jurisdiction as such.
That being so, this Court does not consider it
necessary, and indeed it would not be
appropriate, to examine an objection that
nobody actually raised. This Court confines
itself to the objection that was in truth pressed,
namely, that the petition has outlived its
purpose because the selection process has run
its course.
22.14. That objection deserves to be examined with
some care because it is capable of looking more
formidable than it really is. The argument,
reduced to its essentials, runs as follows: the
SFI took its decision on 23.06.2026, forwarded
the names, the Sports Authority of India and
the Indian Olympic Association have carried
that decision further, the Asian Olympic
Association has uploaded the names, and the
- 95 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
deadline for any change has since passed. Once
all of this has happened, so the argument goes,
there is nothing left for this Court to examine
because whatever this Court says will arrive too
late to make any difference.
22.15. There is an obvious difficulty with an argument
of this kind, and it is one that this Court cannot
allow to pass unaddressed. If the mere passage
of time and the mere onward transmission of a
decision by administrative authorities were
enough to close the door on judicial scrutiny,
then a selecting authority would only have to
move quickly enough, and forward its decision
promptly enough, to place its decision
permanently beyond the reach of Article 226.
An authority that acts lawfully has nothing to
fear from scrutiny, however late it comes. It is
an authority that has not followed its own rules
that has the greatest interest in urging that the
matter has become academic. To accept the
argument at face value, without testing it,
would hand precisely such an authority a shield
that the Constitution never intended it to have.
- 96 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
22.16. This is not a new problem, and it is not one
that this Court has to resolve without guidance.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed strong
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in Manjeet v. Indian Olympic
Association (IOA) and Ors . , a case that
arose in materially similar circumstances,
where the selection in question concerned
representation of the country at the Olympic
Games and the Respondents there too
contended that the challenge had become
infructuous because the deadline for forwarding
the list of athletes had already expired.
22.17. At paragraph 51 of Manjeet , the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi recorded the submission of the
Respondents in that case that "the relief sought
in the present petition has become infructuous
on the ground that the last date for forwarding
the list of athletes was 26.01.2026" (Paragraph
51), a submission that mirrors, almost word for
word, what has been urged before this Court by
the SFI and the Indian Olympic Association.
Despite that submission, the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi proceeded to examine the merits of the
challenge, and at paragraph 56 held that "the
- 97 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
selection process is manifestly arbitrary and
unfair, and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have
failed in their duty as the Supervisory body"
and allowed the relevant prayers (Paragraph
56). At paragraph 57, the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi went further and directed the Indian
Olympic Association there to make all
reasonable efforts to enable the Petitioner to
participate in the event, notwithstanding that
"the impugned selection process has
culminated and that consequential
arrangements have already been acted upon"
(Paragraph 57).
22.18. The principle that emerges from these
paragraphs, and it is one this Court respectfully
adopts for the purposes of the present case, is
a simple one, even though its consequences are
significant: the completion of a selection
process and the onward transmission of its
result do not, without more, close the door to
judicial examination of whether that process
was lawfully conducted. What is placed beyond
challenge, ordinarily, is a decision that survives
examination on the merits, not a decision that
has merely acquired a further layer of
- 98 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
administrative endorsement. A downstream
authority that receives a name and passes it on
cannot, by that act of transmission, cure
whatever illegality attached to the decision at
its source. If it were otherwise, the more
efficiently and rapidly an authority forwarded a
flawed decision, the more completely it would
insulate itself from correction, and diligence in
wrongdoing would be rewarded over slowness
in doing right. That cannot be the law, and this
Court does not understand Manjeet to say
anything different. This Court accordingly
applies the principle in Manjeet and holds that
it directly answers, and defeats, the
infructuousness objection raised by the SFI and
the Indian Olympic Association.
22.19. It is necessary to deal separately with the
submission of Sri Ajay J. Nandalike founded on
the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in Anush Agarwalla v. Ad-hoc Committee
for Governance of Equestrian Federation of
India . The paragraph relied upon, paragraph
56, records the finding that it would be
"logistically impracticable to conduct a further
competition within the time available,
- 99 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
particularly since the riders and horses are
located at different places across the globe"
(Paragraph 56). Read in its own setting, this
observation is concerned with something quite
different from the question this Court is
presently considering. It answers the question
of what relief could practically be granted once
a certain finding on the merits had already
been reached; it does not answer, and was
never addressing, the anterior question of
whether the writ court had the power to
examine the legality of the selection at all. A
finding about the practical workability of a
particular remedy, such as directing a fresh trial
at very short notice with participants scattered
across the globe, is not authority for the wholly
different proposition that a completed and
forwarded selection is immune from scrutiny in
the first place.
22.20. Nor can this Court accept the submission that
the pendency of Special Leave Petition
No.22940/2026 against Anush Agarwalla , in
which notice was issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court but no interim relief was
granted, has any material bearing on the
- 100 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
present controversy. The refusal or absence of
interim relief at the threshold of a pending
appeal is not, and has never been treated as,
an expression of opinion on the merits of the
challenge, still less a decision applicable to a
separate and factually distinct dispute
concerning a different sport, a different
federation and a different set of facts.
22.21. Equally, this Court is unable to accept the
submission of Sri Snehil Balani that once the
list of athletes has been received by the Indian
Olympic Association and forwarded to, and
uploaded by, the Asian Olympic Association, "no
further order can be passed" . Respondent No.3
himself, informed this Court that he had no
instructions as to whether the SFI had, in fact,
followed the procedure prescribed under its
own Selection Policy. It would be a curious
position in law if an authority that admits it
cannot vouch for the legality of what it
transmitted could, by the very act of
transmission, place the matter beyond the
reach of the Court. The submission, if accepted,
would mean that the more layers of onward
forwarding a flawed decision accumulates, the
- 101 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
more completely immune it becomes; however,
the transmitting authorities may hedge on the
question of legality. This Court does not accept
that submission as correctly stating the law, for
the reasons already given while dealing with
Manjeet . Whether, and to what extent, a
direction can still be given to the Indian
Olympic Association or the Asian Olympic
Association in these circumstances is a matter
this Court will address lateron.
22.22. As regards the Sports Authority of India and
the Union of India, both learned counsel
appearing for them disclaimed any role in the
selection itself and stated that they had no
instructions on whether the SFI's Selection
Policy had been followed.
22.23. It is also necessary to notice, for completeness,
that the Addendum to the Selection Policy
dated 16.05.2026, which is part of the material
placed before this Court and reproduced earlier
in this order, itself required the final list to be
submitted to the Indian Olympic Association
"no later than 5th June 2026" and permitted
changes to that list only "no later than 20th
- 102 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
June 2026". The impugned decision of the SFI
is dated 23.06.2026, which is after even this
extended cut-off date contemplated by the
Addendum. This is not a ground independently
pleaded by the Petitioner, and this Court does
not decide the case on that basis, since a writ
court confines itself to the grounds actually
raised and does not go looking for fresh ones.
It is noticed here only because it undercuts, on
the Respondents' own documents, the
suggestion that the selection process had
achieved a settled finality by 23.06.2026 such
that judicial scrutiny would serve no purpose; if
anything, the timeline on record shows a
selection process that was itself running behind
the very schedule the SFI had set for it, which
makes it more, not less, appropriate that the
legality of what was done be examined on its
merits.
22.24. For all these reasons, this Court holds that the
writ petition is maintainable, and that the fact
that the names of the selected athletes have
been forwarded to the Indian Olympic
Association, and by it further transmitted to the
Asian Olympic Association, does not stand in
- 103 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
the way of this Court examining the legality of
the selection process that preceded that
transmission. This Court is conscious, and will
remain conscious through the remaining Points,
that the imminence of the Asian Games and the
advanced stage the process has reached are
real and relevant considerations, but they bear
upon the nature of the relief that can
appropriately be granted, and not upon the
threshold question of whether this Court may
examine the matter at all.
22.25. This Court answers point No.1 by holding that
the writ petition is maintainable and this Court
has the power to examine the legality of the
selection process notwithstanding the
forwarding of names to the Indian Olympic
Association and the subsequent authorities.
23. Answer to Point No.2: Whether the fresh
selection process complied with the SFI
Selection Policy and the directions of the
Appeals Panel dated 16.06.2026, including
consideration of the relevant international
performances from 01.01.2025 onwards?
23.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner,
Sri.P.N.Manmohan, submitted that the
controversy must be understood against the
- 104 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
background of the earlier, first selection
process, which was set aside by the Appeals
Panel. That Committee, according to learned
counsel, had eight members, all of whom
voted, although Clause 10 of the Selection
Policy contemplated a specifically structured
Committee consisting of the High Performance
Director as a non-voting chair, two senior
coaches, one athlete representative, one
external expert or judge, and one legal or
ethics observer who too was non-voting.
Learned counsel took this Court through Clause
10, which reads thus:
"10. Governance: Selection Committee & Conflicts
Selection Committee: HPD (non-voting chair), 2 senior
coaches, 1 athlete representative, 1 external
expert/judge, 1 legal/ethics observer (non-voting).
Conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
Minutes recorded and public summary posted within 7
days after decisions."
23.2. In plain terms, this clause tells the SFI who
may sit on a Selection Committee and in what
capacity. Of the six persons contemplated, only
four have a vote: the two senior coaches, the
athlete representative and the external expert
or judge; the Chair and the legal or ethics
- 105 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
observer sit but do not vote. The clause also
obliges disclosure of conflicts and prompt
publication of minutes.
23.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that the earlier Committee, being differently
and more widely constituted, did not answer
this description, and that this was why the
Appeals Panel treated the defect as one going
to the identity of the decision-maker itself, and
not a mere error of appreciation.
23.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that the remand by the Appeals Panel was not
an unrestricted or open-ended one. According
to him, the Appeals Panel specifically held that
the relevant period for assessment could not be
confined to events from September 2025
onwards, and directed that all international
events from 01.01.2025 be taken into account.
It further considered the MYAS Directive dated
24.09.2025 and treated performance at the
Asian Surfing Championship, 2025, including a
prescribed benchmark, as an important, though
not numerically weighted, consideration, such
that any departure from that benchmark would
- 106 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
call for detailed and cogent reasons. Since the
Petitioner had secured a Bronze Medal at that
very Championship, learned counsel submitted
that this direction was of particular and direct
relevance to the Petitioner's case.
23.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner next took the
Court through Clause 5 of the Selection Policy,
which he described as containing the entire
selection pathway and the tie-break
mechanism, and which he submitted was
central to the dispute. The relevant parts of
that clause read thus:
"5. Selection Pathway (Modules & Timelines)
Module 1 - Eligibility Pool (Ranking Gate)
1. As of 30 September 2025, the Top-8 Men and Top-8
Women in SFI National Rankings (LiveHeats) form the
Selection Pool.
2. Ties at #8 resolved by: (i) head-to-head in 2025
events, (ii) higher best single-event points, (iii) second-
best single-event, (iv) coin toss in presence of SC and
recorded on video.
...
Module 3 - Reduction to Competition Squad +
Bench
Based on Module-2 scores plus 2025 ranking points, SC
reduces the squad by 30 April 2026 to the following
numbers or lower as determined by the selection
committee: Top-3 Men + up to 2 bench athletes; Top-3
- 107 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Women + up to 2 bench athletes. Tie-breakers mirror
Module-1. Minutes and scorecards shared (data
masked).
Module 4 - Team Camp & Qualification Alignment
... Internal surf-offs may be conducted by 15 July 2026
if required.
Module 5 - Final Nomination & Submission
Provisional names approved by SC and ratified by SFI
EC by 20 July 2026. Final names submitted to IOA no
later than 1 August 2026. Only 2 Men and 2 Women will
be nominated to the Asian Games (as per quota)."
23.6. On the strength of this clause, learned counsel
for the Petitioner submitted that the Policy is
built in stages, moving from an objectively
determined pool, through an assessment camp
with published weightings, to a reduction of the
squad using a tie-break sequence that " mirrors "
the one used at the pool stage, and only then
to team training and final nomination. The tie-
break sequence, he emphasised, is not left to
unstructured discretion at any stage; it
proceeds through head-to-head comparison,
then best single-event results, then second-
best single-event results, before any question
of a coin toss, or, as adapted by the General
Secretary's clarification for the present dispute,
a Surf-Off, could even arise.
- 108 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
23.7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that pursuant to the Appeals Panel's decision,
the Special Selection Committee unanimously
selected Mr.Kishore Kumar and Mr.Srikanth D,
but could not agree on whether the Petitioner
or Respondent No.5 should occupy the second
confirmed position, recording instead that a tie
existed between them. He submitted that this
tie did not hand the Committee a free hand to
invent a fresh method of selection; the Policy
already supplied the method, and the General
Secretary's clarification of 21.06.2026, in
identifying a four-step sequence beginning with
objective comparison of performance data (with
the Asian Championship expressly named as an
important input), moving to the Policy's own
tie-break sequence, and only then to an
internal Surf-Off and, failing that, escalation to
MYAS or the Sports Authority of India,
confirmed rather than displaced this structure.
23.8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that the Committee's own proceedings of
21.06.2026 show that this sequence was never
completed. The members continued to disagree
over how " head-to-head " comparison should be
- 109 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
understood and over how to average percentile
scores where the athletes had competed in
unequal numbers of events, and no consensus
was reached on either question before the
discussion moved to the possibility of a Surf-
Off. He submitted that a disagreement over
how to apply a rule is not a licence to abandon
the rule; if the Committee found the criteria
genuinely difficult to apply, its remedy lay in
recording reasons or seeking clarification from
the competent authority, not in substituting an
altogether different mechanism.
23.9. On the specific question of the Petitioner's
Bronze Medal, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that the Committee itself
acknowledged the importance of the Asian
Championship performance, yet did not explain
how that performance was actually weighed
against Respondent No.5's record. He drew a
distinction between the Appeals Panel's
conscious decision not to prescribe a fixed
numerical weight for that performance, and the
wholly different proposition that the
performance could therefore be disregarded;
the clarification of 21.06.2026, he pointed out,
- 110 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
itself treated the Championship as " an
important objective input ," which is
inconsistent with treating it as marginal or
immaterial. He also referred to the
Comprehensive Analytical Report placed before
the Committee, which contained extensive
comparative data, including international and
national results, rankings, percentile analysis,
and heat-win statistics, and submitted that the
presence of this material in the Committee's
papers did not, by itself, show that the material
was actually applied to the two athletes in the
manner the Appeals Panel had directed.
23.10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that the eventual vote of the Special Selection
Committee, two members in favour of the
Petitioner and two in favour of Respondent
No.5, reflected an equally divided Committee
that had not exhausted the prescribed
sequence, and that this state of affairs was
further complicated when Ms.Nitisha Sethia,
having expressed reservations about the
methodology, including the treatment of the
Asian Championship performance, exited the
meeting, after which the remaining members
- 111 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
proceeded to consider a Surf-Off without
pausing to address the consequences of her
exit for the Committee's composition.
23.11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further relied
on the SFI's own communication dated
22.06.2026, which, at what he described as its
paragraph 10, stated that the Petitioner's
Bronze Medal had been considered but was "not
determinative ," and, at paragraph 11, referred
to what he called the " Relaxation Clause " in the
MYAS Directive of 24.09.2025 and sought the
Ministry's concurrence to it. He submitted that
this reference itself gave away that the
Federation understood the final selection to
involve a departure from the Asian
Championship benchmark, a departure that, on
the Appeals Panel's own terms, required
detailed and substantial reasons, reasons
which, according to learned counsel, are
conspicuous by their absence from the record.
23.12. On the question of urgency, learned counsel for
the Petitioner submitted that the Policy itself
permitted an internal Surf-Off as late as
15.07.2026, so that the SFI's own document
- 112 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
did not treat the timeline as requiring the tie-
break sequence to be bypassed as early as
21.06.2026, and that, in any event, an
administrative deadline cannot enlarge the
Selection Committee's or the Executive
Council's authority or excuse departure from
the prescribed procedure.
23.13. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner
relied additionally on the judgment of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manjeet v.
Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and
Ors. , more particularly paragraph 45 thereof,
where it was observed that a sports body
"cannot start acting as a Super Selector and go
beyond the four corners of its authority and
create criteria for selection which do not exist
in the Qualification System which is binding
upon the Respondents" (Paragraph 45), and
paragraph 50, where the Court found that
"athletes were assessed and excluded on the
basis of conditions ... which do not find mention
in" the governing document (Paragraph 50).
Learned counsel submitted that the same vice
infects the present case: the SFI framed Clause
5 and the tie-break sequence, the Appeals
- 113 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Panel gave specific and pointed directions on
what was to be considered, and the SFI could
not depart from that self-created and Appeals-
Panel-endorsed framework, whether by
omission, by a different sequence, or by
relegating the Bronze Medal to an unexplained
residual factor.
23.14. Sri.Ajay J. Nandalike, learned counsel for the
SFI, submitted that selection in sport cannot be
reduced to a single criterion or a single
performance, and that the Selection Committee
is entitled to weigh an athlete's overall record,
including consistency of ranking over several
years, alongside more recent results. He placed
before the Court a year-wise comparison,
according to which the Petitioner was ranked
second nationally in 2022 and 2023, first in
2024, and fourth in both 2025 and 2026, while
Respondent No.5 improved steadily from
twelfth in 2022 to fourth in 2023, sixth in 2024,
second in 2025, and joint first (with Mr.Kishore
Kumar) in 2026. Learned counsel for SFI
submitted that this trajectory, showing
Respondent No.5 overtaking the Petitioner by
the time of selection, was a legitimate and
- 114 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
relevant basis for the Committee's eventual
assessment.
23.15. On the Bronze Medal, learned counsel
submitted that it was taken into account but
was not treated as conclusive, since the
Appeals Panel itself had declined to prescribe a
fixed numerical weight for it; the absence of a
specific mathematical advantage flowing from
the medal could not, therefore, by itself
invalidate the ultimate selection, so long as the
overall record, which the SFI's case is that it
was, had been considered.
23.16. On the views expressed by Ms.Nitisha Sethia,
learned counsel submitted that she was
associated with Surf Kerala, the same state
body with which the Petitioner is connected,
and that her reservations, followed by her exit
from the meeting, could not by themselves be
treated as conclusive proof of unfairness or as
establishing that the Petitioner ought to have
been selected.
23.17. As regards the General Secretary's clarification
of 21.06.2026, learned counsel submitted that
it did not itself select either athlete and did not
- 115 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
bind the Committee to a rigid, non-negotiable
order of steps; it merely set out possible
courses open to the Committee, whose
members remained free to arrive at their own
decision on the material before them.
23.18. Learned counsel emphasised that both the
earlier Selection Committee and the Special
Selection Committee arrived at broadly similar
assessments of the relative standing of the two
athletes, which, according to him, is a relevant
circumstance lending support to the eventual
selection. He also drew attention to the SFI's
continuing willingness to conduct a Surf-Off,
under an independent panel of international
judges, as a transparent means of resolving the
deadlock.
23.19. On the law, learned counsel for the SFI relied
on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in Swastika Ghosh v. Table Tennis
Federation of India [2022 SCC Online Del
1817], more particularly paragraphs 12 to 18
thereof. At paragraph 12, the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi observed that "the power of
judicial review in the matters relating to sports
- 116 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
can be exercised only if there is an allegation of
bad faith. In such matters, the courts should
give great credence to the decision of the
Expert Committee and the coaches" (Paragraph
12), and referred with approval to the
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of U.P. v. Johri Mal , [(2004) 4 SCC
714], that judicial review " is not intended to
assume a supervisory role or don the robes of
omnipresent ... an order passed by an
administrative authority exercising discretion
vested in it, cannot be interfered in judicial
review unless it is shown that exercise of
discretion itself is perverse or illegal "
(Paragraph 12). At paragraph 13, Swastika
Ghosh extracted the observations in Shumel
v. Union of India [2010 SCC OnLine Del
4706], that " 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 "
(Paragraph 13). At paragraph 14, it extracted
Sushil Kumar v. Union of India , [2016 SCC
OnLine Del 3660], and Karamjyoti v. Union
of India [2016 SCC OnLine Del 6766], to the
- 117 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
effect that a writ court will not interfere with
the discretion of a National Sports Federation
"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" (Paragraph 14). At
paragraph 15, it extracted Paralympic
Committee of India v. Naresh Kumar
Sharma [2018 SCC OnLine Del 8443], which in
turn held that a court must "resist adopting a
one-size-fits-all approach" and that "any one
single performance at one competition or trial
cannot be used as a barometer" for selection
(Paragraph 15), while cautioning that
interference remains available where there is
"manifest arbitrariness or mala fides"
(Paragraph 15). Learned counsel submitted that
these paragraphs, taken together, confine
judicial review in athlete-selection matters to
cases of bad faith, arbitrariness, perversity or
illegality, and that the present case discloses
none of these, since the Committee weighed
multiple legitimate factors, including ranking
trends over several seasons, and arrived at a
decision within the range reasonably open to it.
- 118 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
23.20. This Point calls upon this Court to examine
whether the fresh selection exercise,
undertaken after the Appeals Panel set aside
the earlier selection, actually followed the
framework the SFI had itself laid down in
Clause 5 of the Selection Policy, and gave the
Appeals Panel's specific directions the weight
and the answer that those directions
demanded. It is necessary to be clear at the
outset about what this Court is, and is not,
being asked to do. The Petitioner does not ask
this Court to decide, as between himself and
Respondent No.5, who is the better surfer. That
question, on the material before this Court and
consistent with the limits of writ jurisdiction, is
not one this Court is equipped, or entitled, to
answer. What the Petitioner does ask, and what
this Court is both equipped and obliged to
answer, is the narrower and more familiar
question of whether the body entrusted with
making that comparison actually followed the
rules it had set for itself, and gave the
directions issued to it on remand real, and not
merely nominal, effect.
- 119 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
23.21. It is convenient to begin with the extent of the
remand made by the Appeals Panel on
16.06.2026. The Appeals Panel did three
specific things: it required the relevant period
for comparison to run from 01.01.2025 rather
than from September 2025; it required all
international events within that period to be
considered, expressly bringing the Asian
Surfing Championship, 2025 within the
assessment; and it held that, while no fixed
numerical weight needed to be assigned to
performance at that Championship, any
departure from the benchmark recognised in
the MYAS Directive of 24.09.2025 would require
detailed and cogent reasons.
23.22. Read together, Clause 5 of the Selection Policy,
extracted above, describes a staged process.
Module 1 forms a Selection Pool from national
rankings as of a cut-off date, with an internal
tie-break sequence of its own for the borderline
eighth position. Module 2 is a centralised
assessment camp with published weightings
across heats, technical drills, physical testing,
psychological screening and compliance,
producing an objective composite score. Module
- 120 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
23.23. 3 reduces the pool to a competition squad and
bench " based on Module-2 scores plus 2025
ranking points ," with tie-breakers that " mirror
Module-1 ." Module 4 permits internal Surf-Offs
" if required ," by a stated date namely
15.07.2026. Module 5 requires provisional
names to be "approved by SC and ratified by
SFI EC ." Put simply, the Policy tells the
Committee to build its decision on a sequence
of increasingly narrow, objectively measured
filters, with the Surf-Off appearing only as a
later, conditional tool, and it tells the Executive
Council that its role at the end of the process is
to ratify, not to originate, the Committee's
selection.
23.24. Turning to what the Special Selection
Committee in fact did: it is not in dispute, and
indeed it is common ground between the
Petitioner and the SFI, that the Committee
unanimously selected Mr.Kishore Kumar and
Mr.Srikanth.D for the first confirmed and
second reserved positions respectively, and that
it could not agree, whether unanimously or by
majority, on whether the Petitioner or
Respondent No.5 should occupy the second
- 121 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
confirmed position. It is equally common
ground that the Committee's meeting of
21.06.2026 ended with an equally divided vote,
two members favouring the Petitioner and two
favouring Respondent No.5, following which Ms
Nitisha Sethia exited after raising objections to
the methodology being followed.
23.25. What is genuinely in dispute between the
parties is not any of these primary facts but
their legal consequence: whether, in reaching
this state of deadlock, the Committee gave the
Petitioner's Bronze Medal at the Asian Surfing
Championship, 2025, the consideration the
Appeals Panel required, and whether it did so
through a process that can be said to conform
to the sequence set out in the Policy and
reinforced in the General Secretary's
clarification. This is a question this Court can
and must decide on the material before it; it
does not require this Court to weigh, as
between the Petitioner and Respondent No.5,
whose overall surfing ability is superior, and to
that extent it is well within, rather than beyond,
the limits of writ jurisdiction.
- 122 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
23.26. The SFI's own communication of 22.06.2026
states that the Bronze Medal was considered
but was " not determinative ," and, in the very
next breath, invokes the " Relaxation Clause " of
the MYAS Directive and seeks the Ministry's
concurrence to its use. It is difficult to reconcile
a submission that a factor was given due
weight with a simultaneous submission that a
relaxation was needed to depart from the
benchmark that factor was meant to satisfy; an
athlete cannot, in the same document, be said
to have had his qualifying achievement properly
weighed and, at the same time, to have been
the subject of a request for relaxation from the
benchmark based on that very achievement,
unless the relaxation itself is explained. The
invocation of the Relaxation Clause itself
indicates it to be an acknowledgment that the
final outcome did depart from the Asian
Championship benchmark that the Appeals
Panel had specifically flagged.
23.27. That, however, does not by itself end the
matter because the Appeals Panel did not say
that the benchmark could never be departed
from; it said only that a departure required
- 123 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
detailed and cogent reasons. The question this
Court must therefore answer is a narrower one
still: has the SFI shown this Court where, in the
record of the Special Selection Committee's
deliberations, such detailed and cogent reasons
were actually recorded for preferring
Respondent No.5's overall ranking trajectory
over the Petitioner's Asian Championship
performance? On the material placed before
this Court, the answer is that no such reasoned
account has been shown to exist. What has
been placed before the Court is the
Comprehensive Analytical Report containing
extensive comparative data, and the year-wise
national ranking table showing Respondent
No.5 overtaking the Petitioner between 2024
and 2026. The existence of that data is not
disputed. What is missing is any recorded
explanation, from the Special Selection
Committee itself, of how that data was weighed
against the Bronze Medal, and why the ranking
trend was treated as outweighing the
Championship performance that the Appeals
Panel had gone out of its way to bring within
the assessment. A committee that has a mass
- 124 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
of comparative data before it has not, for that
reason alone, applied its mind to the specific
factor it was directed to weigh; the material
has to be shown to have been considered and
recorded in minutes, precisely what Clause 10
of the Policy itself requires when it speaks of
minutes being recorded and a public summary
being posted.
23.28. This Court does not accept the SFI's submission
that the absence of a fixed numerical weight for
the Bronze Medal is a sufficient answer to this
difficulty. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is
correct that there is a real distinction between
declining to prescribe a rigid formula for a
factor, which the Appeals Panel expressly did,
and permitting that factor to be considered
without any visible weight at all, which the
Appeals Panel did not sanction and indeed
guarded against by requiring reasons for
departure.
23.29. The General Secretary's own clarification of
21.06.2026, which named the Asian
Championship as "an important objective input"
at the very first step of the sequence he
- 125 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
outlined, reinforces rather than undermines this
reading. An input that is important at Step 1 of
a sequence does not become unimportant
merely because the Committee, at a later and
disputed stage, found it easier to talk about
overall ranking trends instead.
23.30. It is at this point that the submissions built
upon Swastika Ghosh require careful
application. This Court readily accepts the
principle for which that decision, together with
the authorities it draws upon, stands: that a
writ court does not sit as a court of appeal over
the comparative sporting assessment made by
an expert body, that such assessment is " best
left to the experts in a particular field of sport "
as held in Shumel v. Union of India [2010
SCC OnLine Del 4706] (Paragraph 13, as
extracted in Swastika Ghosh , Paragraph 13),
that interference is confined to cases where
discretion " is shown to have been exercised in
an arbitrary or capricious or perverse manner
or is contrary to settled principles of practices ,"
as held in Sushil Kumar v. Union of India
[2016 SCC OnLine Del 3660] and followed in
Karamjyoti v. Union of India [2016 SCC
- 126 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
OnLine Del 6766] (Paragraph 14, as extracted
in Swastika Ghosh , Paragraph 14), and that a
court must " resist adopting a one-size-fits-all
approach " since " any one single performance at
one competition or trial cannot be used as a
barometer ," as held in Paralympic
Committee of India v. Naresh Kumar
Sharma [2018 SCC OnLine Del 8443]
(Paragraph 15, as extracted in Swastika
Ghosh , Paragraph 15).
23.31. None of this, however, answers the question
actually before this Court. This is not a case in
which the Petitioner asks the Court to re-weigh
his surfing ability against that of Respondent
No.5, using the Court's own sense of what
should matter more, a ranking trend or a
Championship medal. It is a case in which the
Petitioner says that the Committee was told, by
a body superior to it in the Policy's own
appellate hierarchy, that a particular factor
required consideration and that any departure
from it required reasons, and that no such
reasons appear on the record. That is precisely
the kind of complaint that even Swastika
Ghosh , through its own reliance on Johri Mal ,
- 127 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
recognises as remaining open, since
interference is permitted where the exercise of
discretion is shown to be " perverse or illegal "
(Paragraph 12, as extracted in Swastika
Ghosh ). A decision that departs from a
specifically directed benchmark without
recording the reasons that very direction
required is not a decision this Court is asked to
re-assess on sporting merit; it is a decision this
Court is entitled to test for compliance with a
plainly applicable procedural safeguard, and on
that test, for the reasons already given, it does
not pass. This Court accordingly applies the
general principle of restraint drawn from
Swastika Ghosh , but distinguishes its
application to the present, narrower complaint,
which lies within, and not outside, the zone the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi itself left open for
correction.
23.32. The reliance placed on the decisions of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manjeet v.
Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and
Ors . , [W.P.(C) No.936/2026 in CM Appeal.4593
of 2026] by learned counsel for the Petitioner is
applicable, though the case must be applied
- 128 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
with some care rather than treated as an
automatic answer. At paragraph 45, the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi cautioned against a sports
authority acting as a " Super Selector " and
creating " criteria for selection which do not
exist in " the governing framework (Paragraph
45). That is not, in truth, the vice at play here;
the SFI has not invented a new criterion outside
Clause 5, it has, on this Court's finding, failed
to show that it gave a criterion the framework
itself required, namely the Asian Championship
benchmark, the weight and the reasoned
treatment the Appeals Panel demanded. At
paragraph 50, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in Manjeet found that athletes had been
" assessed and excluded on the basis of
conditions ... which do not find mention in " the
governing document (Paragraph 50); again,
this is a case of an extraneous criterion being
applied, which is not quite the complaint here.
This Court therefore does not treat Manjeet as
directly on all fours on this particular question,
and distinguishes it to that extent, while
nonetheless drawing from it the wider and
undisputed proposition, already applied under
- 129 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Point No.1, that a completed selection process
does not become immune from scrutiny merely
because it has been acted upon.
23.33. What this Court decides here, is confined to the
broader question of compliance with the
Appeals Panel's directions regarding the
relevant period and the Asian Championship
benchmark, and on that question, for the
reasons given above, this Court's finding is that
the fresh selection process did not demonstrate
compliance in the manner the Appeals Panel
required, in that the record does not disclose
the detailed and cogent reasons that were a
necessary condition for any departure from the
benchmark that the Petitioner's Bronze Medal
represented.
23.34. This finding is not a finding that the Petitioner
ought necessarily to have been selected in
preference to Respondent No.5; it is a finding
that the process by which the choice between
them was made has not been shown to satisfy
the specific safeguard the Appeals Panel built
into its remand.
- 130 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
23.35. This Court must also deal with the submission
of learned counsel for the SFI that the earlier
Selection Committee and the Special Selection
Committee arrived at a broadly similar
assessment of the relative standing of the
Petitioner and Respondent No.5, which, he
submitted, lends support to the eventual
selection. This Court is unable to accept that
this circumstance advances the SFI's case. The
earlier Selection Committee's assessment was
itself set aside by the Appeals Panel precisely
because that Committee was not properly
constituted, and a decision that has already
been annulled for want of proper constitution
cannot lend legitimacy, by mere repetition of its
outcome, to a second decision that suffers from
its own, independent infirmities. Two
assessments arriving at the same destination
by different, and each separately questionable,
routes do not validate one another; if anything,
the recurrence of a similar outcome without a
visibly different or more rigorous process each
time is as consistent with an unexamined
assumption carried forward from the first
exercise to the second as it is with an
- 131 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
independently and properly reasoned second
look
23.36. This Court answers point No.2 by holding that
the fresh selection process did not fully comply
with the directions of the Appeals Panel dated
16.06.2026 regarding consideration of, and
reasoned departure from, the relevant
international performances from 01.01.2025
onwards, and in particular the Petitioner's
performance at the Asian Surfing
Championship, 2025.
24. Answer to Point No.3: Whether the Special
Selection Committee was justified in
recommending a Surf-Off without first
completing the prescribed tie-break process,
particularly in view of the clarification issued by
the General Secretary of the SFI?
24.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that once the Special Selection Committee
recorded a tie between the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5, it sought clarification from
the SFI, which was furnished by the General
Secretary by email dated 21.06.2026. He
submitted that this clarification set out a
definite sequence and not a menu of
- 132 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
interchangeable options, and described it in
four steps:
24.1.1. first, the Committee was to determine
the position on the basis of objective,
cross-comparable performance data,
with the Asian Surfing Championship,
2025, expressly identified as an
important objective input;
24.1.2. second, if that did not produce a clear
outcome, the Committee was to apply
the tie-break sequence contained in the
Selection Policy, namely the head-to-
head record in the relevant events, the
highest best single-event result or
points, the second-best single-event
result, and, as a final differentiator,
subjective assessment;
24.1.3. third, only if the matter still remained
unresolved, an internal Surf-Off was
suggested as a possible mechanism; and
24.1.4. fourth, if the deadlock persisted even
after that, the matter was to be
escalated to the Ministry of Youth Affairs
- 133 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
and Sports or the Sports Authority of
India.
24.2. Learned counsel submitted that the minutes of
the Committee's meeting of 21.06.2026 show
that its members continued to disagree on the
meaning and application of the objective
criteria at the very first step: one point of
disagreement concerned the scope of "head-to-
head" comparison, and another concerned how
to average percentile scores where the two
athletes had competed in unequal numbers of
events. No consensus was reached on either
question. According to learned counsel, this
means that Step 1 of the General Secretary's
own sequence was never actually completed, so
that the Committee could not properly have
moved even to Step 2, let alone to Step 3,
which is where the idea of a Surf-Off arises.
24.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that this difficulty was compounded by the fact
that one of the Committee's members, Ms
Nitisha Sethia, expressed the specific view that
the procedure being followed was not in
accordance with the Selection Policy, that the
- 134 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Asian Surfing Championship, 2025, ought to
have been given effect to in terms of the
Appeals Panel's direction, and thereafter
resigned from the Committee. He submitted
that the remaining members, rather than
pausing to consider the effect of this
resignation on the propriety of continuing the
exercise, proceeded to discuss and ultimately
recommend a Surf-Off, still without having
completed the first two steps of the very
sequence the General Secretary had outlined
for their guidance.
24.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that even a genuine difficulty in applying a
provision of the Policy could not be treated as a
warrant to leapfrog to a different and more
drastic mechanism; the Committee's proper
course, if it found Step 1 or Step 2 difficult to
apply, was to record its reasons for whatever
conclusion it reached on those steps, or to seek
further clarification, not to bypass them
altogether. He clarified, importantly, that the
Petitioner has no objection in principle to a
Surf-Off as a mechanism; his objection is
confined to the sequence in which it is sought
- 135 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
to be deployed, since even the General
Secretary's own clarification placed it only after,
and not instead of, the objective and tie-break
stages.
24.5. Sri Ajay J. Nandalike, learned counsel for the
SFI, submitted that the General Secretary's
email of 21.06.2026 did not itself decide
anything and did not bind the Committee to a
rigid, non-negotiable order of steps; it merely
set out the possible courses open to the
Committee for resolving the deadlock, while
leaving the ultimate decision to the
Committee's own deliberation on the material
before it. He submitted that no adverse
inference could be drawn from that
communication.
24.6. Learned counsel submitted that despite the
Committee's efforts, the deadlock between the
Petitioner and Respondent No.5 persisted
through the meeting of 21.06.2026, and that
this had to be resolved urgently because the
SFI was obliged to communicate the
composition of the surfing squad within the
time available for the Asian Games. He
- 136 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
submitted that, on 22.06.2026, the SFI
informed the Indian Olympic Association of the
continuing deadlock and requested that a Surf-
Off be organised between the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5, seeking the maximum
possible extension of time for that purpose, but
received no response to that communication
sent at about 3.45 p.m. that day. In those
circumstances, and with the deadline pressing,
the SFI proceeded to forward the names of the
selected athletes on 23.06.2026, so as to
protect India's interest in retaining its quota
position in the surfing events.
24.7. Learned counsel submitted that the SFI
remains, even now, willing to conduct a Surf-
Off between the Petitioner and Respondent
No.5, since both continue to train at the
National Training Camp, and is willing to
constitute an independent panel of international
judges for that purpose, so as to remove any
apprehension of partiality and to provide a
direct, contemporaneous, and transparent
means of resolving the continuing
disagreement between two athletes whom the
SFI regards as both being of sufficient merit to
- 137 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
be considered for the position. He submitted
that this proposal is not intended to displace
the Selection Policy but to operationalise it in a
manner fair to both athletes.
24.8. The material on record shows that, after the
Special Selection Committee found a tie
between the Petitioner and Respondent No.5, it
sought clarification from the SFI. The General
Secretary of the SFI, by email dated
21.06.2026, explained the manner in which the
deadlock could be resolved.
24.9. The clarification contemplated four successive
stages. First, the Committee was required to
compare the objective performance data of the
two athletes, including their performance in the
Asian Surfing Championship, 2025. Secondly, if
that exercise did not produce a clear result, the
tie-break provisions under the Selection Policy
were to be applied. Thirdly, only if the matter
remained unresolved after the earlier steps, an
internal Surf-Off could be considered. Finally, if
the deadlock continued even thereafter, the
matter could be taken to MYAS or SAI.
- 138 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
24.10. The first question, therefore, is whether these
were merely four alternative methods placed
before the Committee, or whether they were
intended to be followed one after another. In
the considered view of this Court, the language
of the clarification makes the position clear. The
second step was to follow only if the first step
did not give a clear result. The third step was to
be considered only if the matter “still” remained
unresolved. The fourth step was to arise only if
the deadlock continued “even after” the third
step.
24.11. These expressions show that the General
Secretary was not giving the Committee four
independent choices. He was explaining the
order in which the matter was to be dealt with.
The Committee could not therefore select the
third step merely because it found the first or
second step difficult to apply. If that
interpretation were accepted, there would be
no purpose in prescribing the earlier stages.
24.12. The minutes of the meeting dated 21.06.2026
are important in this regard. They show that
the members of the Committee were still
- 139 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
divided about the manner in which the
objective material was to be assessed. There
was disagreement about the meaning of “head-
to-head” performance. There was also
disagreement regarding the manner in which
percentile scores should be averaged when the
two athletes had participated in different
numbers of events. No final agreement was
reached on these questions.
24.13. Thus, the difficulty before the Committee was
not that it had applied the prescribed criteria
and, after doing so, found that the result was
still exactly equal. Rather, the Committee had
not reached agreement on how some of the
prescribed criteria themselves were to be
applied.
24.14. This distinction is important. If the Committee
had applied the prescribed criteria and, after
completing the exercise, found that the
Petitioner and Respondent No.5 remained
equal, it could then consider the next step in
accordance with the Policy and the clarification.
But where the Committee had not completed
the earlier exercise, it could not treat the
- 140 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
resulting disagreement as a completed tie and
move directly to a Surf-Off.
24.15. Learned counsel for the SFI submits that the
General Secretary's email merely identified the
possible courses available to the Committee
and did not require them to be followed in any
particular order. This submission cannot be
accepted. The language of the email, read as a
whole, does not support such an interpretation.
Each subsequent step was made dependent
upon the failure of the preceding step. The
words used are simple and have a clear
meaning. The Committee was required to
proceed in sequence.
24.16. There was another circumstance which called
for caution. During the meeting, Ms. Nitisha
Sethia raised an objection to the procedure
being followed. Her objection included the
manner in which the Asian Surfing
Championship, 2025 performance was being
treated and the departure from the Selection
Policy. She thereafter resigned from the
Committee.
- 141 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
24.17. This Court does not consider it necessary to
decide whether Ms. Sethia's views on the
sporting merits were correct. Nor is her
association with Surf Kerala, relied upon by the
SFI, relevant to the legal issue now being
considered. What is relevant is that a member
of the Selection Committee raised a
contemporaneous objection that the procedure
being followed was not in accordance with the
Policy and thereafter resigned.
24.18. Once such an objection was raised, particularly
when the Committee was already divided on
the method of applying the selection criteria,
the appropriate course would have been to
pause the process and obtain further
clarification, if necessary. Instead, the
remaining members continued the deliberations
and moved towards the Surf-Off.
24.19. The SFI submits that the Committee had to act
quickly because the deadline for communicating
the names was approaching. The Court has
considered this submission. However, the
deadline does not explain why the prescribed
procedure could not be completed.
- 142 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
24.20. In fact, Clause 5 of the Selection Policy itself
contemplated that an internal Surf-Off could be
conducted by 15.07.2026, if required. The
Committee's meeting was held on 21.06.2026.
Therefore, the Policy itself contemplated the
possibility of a Surf-Off at a later date. There
was no material before this Court to show that
it was necessary to bypass the earlier stages
merely because the final date for
communication of the names was approaching.
24.21. Administrative urgency cannot be used to
change the procedure prescribed by the
authority itself. The authorities responsible for
the selection were aware of the relevant
deadlines. If they considered that the time
available was insufficient, they could have
sought appropriate clarification or extension
from the competent authority. What they could
not do was treat the deadline as a reason to
skip mandatory parts of the selection process.
24.22. This Court is also mindful of the limited scope
of judicial review in matters concerning sporting
selections. This Court is not an expert in surfing
and does not propose to decide which of the
- 143 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
two athletes is the better surfer. It is equally
not the function of the Court to award marks or
re-assess the performance of the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5.
24.23. The question before the Court is much
narrower. The question is whether the Selection
Committee followed the procedure which the
SFI had itself prescribed and which its General
Secretary had subsequently explained when the
Committee sought clarification.
24.24. There is an important difference between
questioning the result of an expert assessment
and questioning the manner in which the
assessment was made. In the first case, the
Court would normally be slow to interfere. In
the second, the Court can examine whether the
authority acted according to the rules
governing its decision-making process.
24.25. In the present case, the Court is concerned
with the latter. The issue is not whether the
Petitioner or Respondent No.5 should ultimately
occupy the confirmed position. The issue is
whether the Committee was entitled to proceed
to a Surf-Off without first completing the
- 144 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
objective assessment and the tie-break process
which preceded it.
24.26. The SFI also submits that it is even now willing
to conduct a Surf-Off between the Petitioner
and Respondent No.5 before an independent
panel of international judges. The Court
appreciates that this proposal is intended to
provide a practical solution to the continuing
dispute. There is, however, no need to decide at
this stage whether a Surf-Off is, in itself, a fair
or appropriate method.
24.27. The defect lies in when the Surf-Off was
introduced into the process, and not necessarily
in the Surf-Off itself. If the Policy permits a
Surf-Off after the earlier stages have been
completed, there may be nothing inherently
improper in conducting one. What is not
permissible is to use the Surf-Off as a
substitute for the earlier stages.
24.28. It is also necessary to clarify that the Court's
conclusion does not depend upon whether the
last differentiating factor mentioned in the
General Secretary's email was described as
“subjective assessment” or whether Clause 5
- 145 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
contains a different final tie-break provision at
another stage. Even assuming that the
clarification correctly identified the final
differentiating factor, the earlier steps still had
to be completed. The record does not show that
the objective comparison and the prescribed
tie-break criteria were fully worked out before
the Committee moved to the Surf-Off.
24.29. The equal division of the Committee, with two
members supporting the Petitioner and two
supporting Respondent No.5, does not alter this
position. A tied vote may show that the
Committee could not agree on the final
outcome. It does not, by itself, establish that
the prescribed method for reaching that
outcome had been fully applied.
24.30. The Court therefore finds that the Special
Selection Committee did not complete the
earlier stages of the process before
recommending a Surf-Off. The recommendation
was consequently made prematurely.
24.31. This conclusion does not mean that the
Petitioner is entitled, merely because of this
finding, to be declared the selected athlete. Nor
- 146 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
does it mean that Respondent No.5 is
disqualified from being selected. The Court is
only holding that the decision must be reached
by following the prescribed procedure.
24.32. The principle is simple. Where an authority has
itself prescribed a method for resolving a tie, it
must first follow that method. It cannot move
to a later or alternative method merely because
the earlier method has become difficult to
apply.
24.33. For these reasons, this Court holds that the
Special Selection Committee was not justified in
recommending a Surf-Off on 21.06.2026
without first completing the objective
assessment and the tie-break process
contemplated under the Selection Policy as
clarified by the General Secretary of SFI.
25. Answer to Point No.4: Whether the Executive
Council of the SFI had the power to
independently select Respondent No.5 when
the Special Selection Committee had failed to
arrive at a decision?
25.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that Module 5 of Clause 5 of the Selection
Policy requires that "provisional names" be
- 147 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
"approved by SC and ratified by SFI EC," a
formulation which, according to him, casts the
Executive Council in the role of a ratifying
authority acting upon a selection already
arrived at by the Selection Committee, and not
in the role of an original selector in its own
right. He submitted that ratification, by its
ordinary meaning, presupposes something
concrete to ratify, namely a provisional
selection actually made by the body entrusted
with making it.
25.2. Learned counsel submitted that the Special
Selection Committee never arrived at any
provisional selection as between the Petitioner
and Respondent No.5; it recorded a tie, sought
clarification, met again on 21.06.2026, and
ended that meeting with an equally divided
vote of two members to two, without resolving
the deadlock. There being no provisional
selection by the Selection Committee capable of
ratification, learned counsel submitted that the
Executive Council's subsequent action,
described by the SFI itself as an "Executive
Call," selecting Respondent No.5 as the second
confirmed athlete and placing the Petitioner as
- 148 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
the first reserve, was not an exercise of the
ratifying power conferred by Module 5 at all,
but an entirely independent act of original
selection, one for which the Policy gives the
Executive Council no warrant.
25.3. He submitted that the Executive Council could
not cure the Selection Committee's failure to
complete the prescribed process by substituting
its own selection for that of the Committee; if
the Committee had not lawfully completed the
exercise entrusted to it, there was, in law, no
valid provisional selection in existence for the
Executive Council to ratify, and the Executive
Council's power under the Policy did not extend
to filling that vacuum by making a fresh choice
of its own.
25.4. In reply, learned counsel submitted that the
Executive Council's action represented a further
and independent departure from the Selection
Policy, over and above the infirmities already
pressed under Points No.2 and 3, since the
Selection Committee had not arrived at any
concluded selection between the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5 at the time the Executive
- 149 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Council acted, and the Policy nowhere clothes
the Executive Council with an original selecting
function to be exercised in such a contingency.
25.5. Sri Ajay J. Nandalike, learned counsel for the
SFI, submitted that the Special Selection
Committee was, in substance, a delegate
constituted by the SFI to carry out the selection
exercise on the SFI's behalf, and that its
constitution as such a delegate did not result in
the SFI losing its own, underlying authority
over the selection of athletes. On this footing,
he submitted that when the delegate, namely
the Special Selection Committee, failed to
arrive at either a unanimous or a majority
decision and recorded a deadlock, the failure of
the delegate to decide did not extinguish the
authority retained by the principal, the SFI, and
that the SFI, acting through its Executive
Council, was entitled to exercise that retained
authority and bring the selection process to a
conclusion.
25.6. For this proposition, learned counsel relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2005)
- 150 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
2 SCC 334], more particularly paragraphs 10
and 12 thereof. At paragraph 10, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, drawing upon the Collins
English Dictionary, observed that a "delegate"
is " a person who is chosen to vote or make
decisions on behalf of a group of other people "
and that " if you delegate duties, responsibilities
or power to someone, you give them those
duties, those responsibilities, or that power so
that they can act on your behalf " (Paragraph
10). At paragraph 12, relying on
Venkataramaiya's Law Lexicon, it was observed
that " delegation ... does not imply a parting
with powers by the person who grants the
delegation, but points rather to a conferring of
an authority to do things which otherwise the
person would have to do himself " (Paragraph
12).
25.7. Learned counsel submitted that this explains
why the Executive Council's decision was not an
usurpation of a power belonging exclusively to
the Special Selection Committee, but simply
the exercise, by the principal, of the very
authority it had all along retained,
notwithstanding the delegation, an exercise
- 151 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
rendered necessary once the delegate proved
unable to decide.
25.8. Learned counsel further submitted that the
Executive Council's decision has to be
understood against the urgent deadline for
communicating the names to the Indian
Olympic Association, and that the SFI could not
risk losing India's quota or its representation at
the Asian Games merely because the delegated
Committee remained deadlocked. He submitted
that the expression "ratification" used in the
Policy cannot be read as completely excluding
the SFI's retained power to act where the
Selection Committee is unable to arrive at a
decision at all.
25.9. This point concerns a narrow question: what
power did the Selection Policy give to the
Executive Council at the final stage, and did the
Executive Council act within that power when it
selected Respondent No.5? The question does
not require the Court to decide which of the two
athletes is better. It requires only an
examination of the Selection Policy and the
manner in which the Executive Council acted.
- 152 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
25.10. Module 5 of Clause 5 provides that the
“provisional names” are to be “approved by SC
and ratified by SFI EC”. The provision therefore
contemplates two stages. First, the Selection
Committee has to approve the provisional
names. Thereafter, the Executive Council has to
ratify those names.
25.11. The words used in the Policy are important. The
Executive Council is required to ratify the
names approved by the Selection Committee.
Ratification ordinarily means confirmation or
approval of something which has already been
decided. It presupposes the existence of a prior
decision. Therefore, where the Selection
Committee has not approved any name for a
particular position, there is nothing before the
Executive Council which can be ratified.
25.12. In the present case, the Special Selection
Committee did not approve either the Petitioner
or Respondent No.5 for the second confirmed
position. It first recorded a tie, sought
clarification from the General Secretary, met
again on 21.06.2026 and remained divided,
with two members supporting the Petitioner
- 153 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
and two supporting Respondent No.5. Thus,
there was no provisional selection by the
Committee in respect of the disputed position.
25.13. In these circumstances, the Executive Council's
subsequent decision to select Respondent No.5
cannot properly be described as ratification. It
was, in substance, a fresh selection made by
the Executive Council itself. The fact that the
SFI described the decision as an “Executive
Call” also shows that the Executive Council was
not merely confirming a decision already taken
by the Selection Committee.
25.14. Learned counsel for the SFI relies upon Ishwar
Singh , and submits that delegation does not
necessarily mean that the principal gives up the
power which has been delegated. The Court has
no difficulty accepting that general proposition.
However, the question in the present case is
not whether a principal can, in every situation,
exercise a power after delegating it. The
question is what the SFI itself provided in its
Selection Policy.
25.15. The decision in Ishwar Singh deals with the
general concept of delegation. It does not
- 154 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
interpret the particular words used by the SFI
in Module 5. The SFI was free to provide that, if
the Selection Committee failed to reach a
decision, the Executive Council could itself
make the final selection. It could also have
prescribed a further mechanism for resolving
such a deadlock. But no such provision has
been shown to exist.
25.16. On the contrary, the Selection Policy contains
specific provisions dealing with other situations
where difficulty may arise. It provides a tie-
break mechanism, permits an internal Surf-Off
in the circumstances contemplated by Module
4, and provides for escalation in the manner
indicated in the clarification issued by the
General Secretary. The Policy does not say that,
if the Selection Committee remains equally
divided, the Executive Council may take over
the selection and choose one of the athletes.
25.17. This is also consistent with Clause 17 of the
Selection Policy. Clause 17 provides that the
SFI may amend or update the Policy when
changes in government regulations,
international federation guidelines, IOA/OCA
- 155 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
requirements or unforeseen external
circumstances make such change necessary. It
further provides for communication of such
changes to the athletes.
25.18. The SFI had in fact exercised this power earlier
by issuing an Addendum dated 16.05.2026 to
Module 5 to align the selection timeline with the
requirements of the Indian Olympic Association.
This shows that the SFI knew how to change its
Policy when a change was considered
necessary. No amendment has been shown
which conferred upon the Executive Council an
independent power to select an athlete when
the Selection Committee remained deadlocked.
25.19. The submission based on the urgency of the
deadline also cannot, by itself, confer such
power. The SFI was required to act within the
powers given to it by the Policy. The fact that
the names had to be communicated within a
particular time may explain why the SFI felt
compelled to take a decision, but it cannot
create a power which the Policy does not
contain.
- 156 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
25.20. The General Secretary's clarification also
contemplated escalation to MYAS or SAI if the
earlier steps failed to resolve the deadlock. The
SFI had, in fact, approached the IOA on
22.06.2026 seeking additional time. Thus, the
Policy and the subsequent clarification provided
avenues by which the difficulty could have been
addressed.
25.21. If the SFI considered that the Policy did not
adequately deal with the situation which had
arisen, it could have invoked Clause 17 and
made an appropriate amendment after giving
the required notice. What it could not do was
treat the urgency as an implied amendment to
the Policy and confer upon the Executive
Council a power which had not been expressly
given to it.
25.22. The Court is conscious that the Executive
Council and the officers of the SFI may have
acted with the genuine intention of ensuring
India's participation in the Asian Games. There
is no need to question their bona fides for
deciding this issue. The question is one of
authority, and not motive. Even a decision
- 157 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
taken with the best of intentions must be within
the power conferred by the governing rules.
25.23. The principle of judicial restraint in sporting
matters does not alter this conclusion. The
Court is not interfering with the sporting
assessment of the Petitioner and Respondent
No.5. It is only examining whether the SFI's
own bodies acted within the authority given to
them by the Selection Policy.
25.24. Once the Selection Committee had failed to
approve a provisional name for the disputed
position, the Executive Council could not, under
the wording of Module 5, convert its power of
ratification into an original power of selection.
The two functions are different.
25.25. The proper course, when the Selection
Committee remained deadlocked, was to follow
the remaining mechanisms available under the
Policy and the clarification, or obtain
appropriate directions from the competent
authority. The Executive Council could not
bypass those mechanisms and itself decide
which athlete should be selected.
- 158 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
25.26. This Court, therefore, holds that the general
principle in Ishwar Singh regarding delegation
does not assist the SFI on the facts of the
present case. The specific language of its own
Selection Policy governs the exercise of the
power. Module 5 required a prior approval by
the Selection Committee before the Executive
Council could exercise its power of ratification.
No such approval existed in respect of the
second confirmed position.
25.27. This court answers Point No.4 by holding that
the Executive Council of the SFI did not have
the power under Module 5 of Clause 5 of the
Selection Policy to independently select
Respondent No.5 when the Special Selection
Committee had not approved any provisional
name for the position in question.
26. Answer to Point No.5: Whether the impugned
selection of Respondent No.5 and consequential
placement of the Petitioner as first reserve are
liable to be quashed, and, if so, what relief
should follow?
26.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that the cumulative effect of the infirmities set
out, namely, the absence of detailed and
- 159 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
cogent reasons for departing from the Asian
Championship benchmark, the premature
recommendation of a Surf-Off without
completing the prescribed tie-break sequence,
and the Executive Council's assumption of a
selecting power that Module 5 does not confer
upon it, renders the selection of Respondent
No.5 as the second confirmed athlete, and the
consequential placement of the Petitioner as
the first reserve, unsustainable in law. He
accordingly prayed that this selection, and the
SFI's decision dated 23.06.2026 giving effect to
it, along with the Selection public summaries
dated 20.06.2026 and 21.06.2026, be quashed,
and that Respondent No.3 be directed to recall
the list of selected athletes to the extent it
reflects this selection.
26.2. Learned counsel submitted, as his principal
prayer, that the appropriate course would be a
fresh exercise by the competent authority,
strictly in accordance with Clause 5 of the
Selection Policy, the decision of the Appeals
Panel dated 16.06.2026, the MYAS Directive
dated 24.09.2025, and the sequential
mechanism clarified by the General Secretary
- 160 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
on 21.06.2026. He reiterated that the Petitioner
does not seek a finding from this Court that he
is the better athlete, only that the process the
SFI itself devised be honestly completed.
26.3. Sri Ajay J. Nandalike, learned counsel for the
SFI, while maintaining that no interference is
warranted, submitted in the alternative, and
without prejudice to his primary submissions,
that if this Court is of the view that the
continuing deadlock requires an independent
resolution, the SFI remains willing to conduct a
Surf-Off between the Petitioner and Respondent
No.5, both of whom continue to train together
at the National Training Camp, under the
supervision of an independent panel of
international judges, and to abide by the result
of that contest.
26.4. Sri Snehil Balani, learned counsel for the Indian
Olympic Association, and Sri Abhilash R.,
learned counsel for the Sports Authority of
India, both reiterated that their respective
clients had no role in the selection itself and
had proceeded only on the basis of the list
communicated to them by the SFI.
- 161 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
26.5. This Court now brings together the findings
recorded under the preceding four Points,
without repeating the reasoning by which each
was reached, in order to decide what should
follow from them.
26.6. Under Point No.1, this Court has held that the
writ petition is maintainable and that the
forwarding of names does not bar this Court
from examining the legality of the selection.
26.7. Under Point No.2, this Court has held that the
fresh selection process did not demonstrate the
detailed and cogent reasons the Appeals Panel
required for any departure from the Asian
Championship benchmark relevant to the
Petitioner's Bronze Medal.
26.8. Under Point No.3, this Court has held that the
Special Selection Committee's recommendation
of a Surf-Off on 21.06.2026 was premature,
being made without first completing Steps 1
and 2 of the sequence set out in the General
Secretary's clarification of that date.
26.9. Under Point No.4, this Court has held that the
Executive Council's selection of Respondent
- 162 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
No.5, in the absence of any provisional
selection approved by the Special Selection
Committee, was not an act of ratification within
the meaning of Module 5 of Clause 5, and was
therefore taken without authority.
26.10. These findings, taken together, leave this Court
in no doubt that the selection of Respondent
No.5 as the second confirmed athlete, and the
consequential placement of the Petitioner as
the first reserve athlete, as communicated by
the SFI on 23.06.2026, is vitiated in law and
would, in the ordinary course, be liable to be
quashed. The illegality found is not a single,
isolated slip that might be excused as
immaterial; it runs through three successive
stages of the process, the treatment of a factor
the Appeals Panel required to be considered,
the sequence by which the tie was sought to be
broken, and the authority under which the final
choice was made, and each stage compounds
the difficulty created by the one before it. On
the footing of Points No.2, 3 and 4 standing
alone, this Court would have had little
hesitation in setting aside the decision of the
SFI dated 23.06.2026 in so far as it selects
- 163 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Respondent No.5 as the second confirmed
athlete and places the Petitioner as the first
reserve athlete.
26.11. At this stage, the Court has to consider not only
the illegality found in the process but also the
effect of granting the relief sought by the
Petitioner. A finding that a decision is legally
defective does not, in every case, mean that
the Court must necessarily undo everything
that has happened thereafter. The power under
Article 226 is discretionary. The Court has to
consider what relief would be appropriate in the
circumstances of the particular case.
26.12. The present case has to be considered against
the stage which the selection process has
already reached. The names of the selected
athletes have been forwarded by the SFI to the
Sports Authority of India and the Indian
Olympic Association. They have thereafter been
communicated to the Asian Olympic Association
and uploaded on the relevant portal. The 20th
Asian Games are now imminent and scheduled
to be held from September 19 to October 4,
2026.
- 164 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
26.13. If the Court were to set aside the selection at
this stage and direct that the names be
withdrawn and a fresh selection undertaken,
there is a real possibility of delay in processing
the revised names. The Court cannot proceed
on the assumption that the concerned
international authorities would necessarily
accept a change at this late stage or that
sufficient time would remain for completing all
consequential formalities.
26.14. There is also a larger consideration. The
consequence of disturbing the present list may
not be confined to the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5. India's quota in the men's
surfing event may itself be placed at risk. If the
revised nomination is not accepted within the
available time, other members of the Indian
surfing contingent may also be affected. The
issue, therefore, is no longer confined to
deciding which of two athletes should occupy
the second confirmed position. It may affect
India's participation in the event as a whole.
26.15. The SFI has relied upon the approaching
deadline and the need to protect India's
- 165 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
representation. That consideration cannot
justify the departures from the Selection Policy
which have already been found. At the same
time, the same consideration becomes relevant
when the Court has to decide what relief should
now be granted.
26.16. There is a distinction between finding an
illegality and deciding the appropriate
consequential relief. The Court has found that
the selection process was not conducted in
accordance with the governing Policy. That
finding remains.
26.17. The fact that the Court may, for practical
reasons, decline to cancel the selection does
not convert an unlawful process into a lawful
one.
26.18. The decision in Manjeet v. Indian Olympic
Association is relevant in this context. The
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, while dealing with a
challenge to the selection of athletes for an
international sporting event, considered the
submission that the selection had already been
completed and that the relevant deadline had
passed. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court
- 166 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
nevertheless examined the legality of the
process and found it to be manifestly arbitrary
and unfair. It did not treat completion of the
selection process as a bar to judicial scrutiny.
26.19. At the same time, Manjeet also illustrates that
the relief in a writ petition can be shaped
according to the circumstances. This Court is
not required to adopt an all-or-nothing
approach. Where subsequent events make it
impractical or harmful to undo the entire
process, this Court may mould the relief so that
the illegality is recognised and appropriate
directions are issued without causing greater
prejudice.
26.20. In the present case, this Court is therefore of
the view that setting aside the selection at this
late stage would create consequences which go
beyond the dispute between the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5. The possibility of affecting
India's participation in the men's surfing event
is a serious consideration. It would not be
appropriate for this Court to put the country's
representation at risk merely to correct a
selection process which, although found to be
- 167 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
legally defective, has already resulted in the
names being processed at the international
level.
26.21. This Court is also conscious that the Petitioner
has approached the Court because he claims
that the selection process deprived him of an
opportunity to represent the country. His
grievance cannot be dismissed merely because
the authorities have completed the subsequent
steps. This Court has already held that the
forwarding or uploading of the names does not
prevent judicial scrutiny of the underlying
selection process.
26.22. The fact that the Court does not disturb the
selection at this stage therefore should not be
understood as an acceptance of the SFI's
procedure. The selection of Respondent No.5
remains affected by the defects already
identified under the earlier points. This Court is
only declining to grant the consequential relief
of quashing the selection because of the
present circumstances and the possible effect
upon India's participation in the Asian Games.
- 168 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
26.23. This Court must nevertheless consider whether
anything further should follow from the findings
already recorded. In the opinion of this Court,
the matter cannot simply end with a finding
that the process was defective.
26.24. The SFI had itself framed the Selection Policy.
The athletes participating in the selection
process were entitled to proceed on the basis
that the Policy would be followed. The Policy
was not merely an internal document of the
Federation. It laid down the conditions and
procedure under which athletes would compete
for selection to represent the country.
26.25. A sportsperson who spends years training and
competing for the opportunity to represent the
country is entitled to know the rules by which
the selection will be made. Once the Federation
publishes those rules, it must follow them fairly
and consistently. If the Federation departs from
them at the decisive stage, the athlete is placed
at a serious disadvantage because the athlete
has no opportunity to arrange his or her
preparation on the basis of a rule which is
introduced later.
- 169 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
26.26. This is particularly important in the present
case because the process had already once
been set aside by the Appeals Panel. The fresh
selection was therefore not an ordinary first-
time exercise. The SFI was required to correct
the defects which had led to the earlier
selection being set aside. The fact that further
departures occurred during the fresh exercise
makes the matter more serious.
26.27. That, however, is emphatically not the end of
the matter. The persons responsible for the
manner in which the fresh selection was
conducted, and for the departures recorded
under Points No.2, 3 and 4, cannot be
permitted to treat this restraint as an acquittal.
A National Sports Federation that frames its
own Selection Policy, invites athletes, coaches
and officials to order their conduct by it, and
then departs from that very Policy without
recording the reasons the Policy itself demands,
cannot be allowed to walk away from that
departure unexamined merely because this
Court has, for reasons entirely unconnected
with the merits of the departure, declined to
unwind its consequences. If accountability were
- 170 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
confined only to the setting aside of what has
already been done, an authority racing against
a deadline of its own making would always
have an incentive to act first and defend itself
later, secure in the knowledge that the
imminence of the very event it was selecting
for would shield the process from real scrutiny.
This Court is not willing to allow the SFI's
Selection Policy, or the confidence athletes are
entitled to repose in it, to be treated in that
fashion.
26.28. This Court considers it necessary, before
directing the course set out below, to record
why such accountability is owed, and to whom.
National Sports Federations exist, and are
permitted to function as the recognised
custodians of their respective disciplines, only
because of the sportsmen and sportswomen
who have dedicated their lives, frequently at
real personal and financial sacrifice, to
representing the country in that discipline. In a
country such as ours, where the funding,
infrastructure and facilities made available to a
sportsperson are not always as abundant, or as
readily forthcoming, as the effort and sacrifice a
- 171 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
sporting career demands, a sportsperson who
has proved himself or herself through
performance on the field of play is entitled to
be treated with the respect that such
achievement deserves, and to have his or her
claim to selection considered strictly in
accordance with the policy that the Federation
itself has published and holds out to athletes as
the applicable norm. Where a Federation
publishes a Selection Policy of this kind, and
invites athletes to order their training, their
competitive calendar, and indeed a material
part of their sporting careers, around what that
Policy promises, a legitimate expectation arises,
and is intended to arise, that the Policy as
published will be implemented in its true letter
and spirit; and where there is a violation of that
expectation, it is not a mere administrative
irregularity to be viewed indulgently, but a
breach of the trust that the athletes governed
by the Policy, and the public that follows and
supports them, are entitled to repose in the
Federation.
26.29. Litigation of the present kind, in which a Court
is compelled to record that the actions of a
- 172 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
National Sports Federation have been
manifestly arbitrary, does no credit, and augurs
no good, to the Federation whose conduct is so
examined. This Court places on record its
disapproval of the manner in which the fresh
selection process in question was conducted by
the SFI, for the reasons already recorded in
detail under Points No.2, 3 and 4, and considers
it necessary to state, in terms that admit of no
ambiguity, that Sports Federations, including
Respondent No.4, are required to conduct
themselves strictly in accordance with law, and
are not above the law merely because they
administer a particular sport. They are public
institutions, discharging public duties, and
functioning, in substantial measure, with the
aid of public funds; the citizens of this country
are entitled to look to such Federations to
discharge that duty correctly, and to identify,
through a selection process that is transparent
and impeccable in its adherence to the
Federation's own published policy, the proper
persons to represent the country in
international competition. A Federation that
falls short of that standard, and does so in a
- 173 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
manner that comes to light only through the
intervention of a Court, must be taken to have
failed in a public duty owed not merely to the
contesting athletes before the Court, but to the
country at large, and this Court records its
disapproval accordingly, together with its
expectation that Respondent No.4 shall not
permit a recurrence.
26.30. This Court therefore considers that the officers
and members responsible for the fresh
selection process should be required to explain
the circumstances in which the Policy and the
directions of the Appeals Panel were not
followed.
26.31. Such an exercise need not amount to a finding
that any particular person acted with mala fide
intention. The question is different. It is
necessary to ascertain what happened, why the
prescribed procedure was not followed, who
took the relevant decisions, and whether any
change to the selection process was consciously
made and, if so, on what basis.
26.32. The inquiry should therefore cover the conduct
of the members of the Special Selection
- 174 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Committee who participated in the meetings of
16.06.2026 and 21.06.2026 and the members
of the Executive Council who took the decision
described as the “Executive Call” on or about
23.06.2026.
26.33. The inquiry shall amongst others examine the
entire decision-making process which led to the
selection of Respondent No.5 as the second
confirmed athlete and the placement of the
Petitioner as the first reserve. It should not be
confined to the final decision of the Executive
Council alone, since the final decision was
preceded by the proceedings of the Special
Selection Committee, the clarification sought
from the SFI, the response of the General
Secretary, the deliberations of the Committee
on 21.06.2026, the resignation of one of its
members, the proposal for a Surf-Off, the
communications exchanged with the Indian
Olympic Association, and finally the decision
described as the “Executive Call”. The inquiry
may, therefore, examine, among other things,
the following aspects:
- 175 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
26.33.1. Constitution and authority of the
Selection Committee: Whether the
Special Selection Committee was
constituted strictly in accordance with
Clause 10 of the Selection Policy and the
directions contained in the Appeals
Panel's order dated 16.06.2026; whether
all the members who participated in the
selection were duly authorised; what
was the scope of the authority given to
the Committee; and whether the
Committee understood its role to be that
of making the selection, making a
recommendation, or making a
provisional selection subject to
ratification by the Executive Council.
26.33.2. Effect of the Appeals Panel's
decision dated 16.06.2026: Whether
the Appeals Panel had directed the SFI
to undertake a completely fresh selection
in accordance with the Selection Policy;
whether the Committee was aware of
each of the directions contained in that
decision; whether those directions were
placed before the Committee and
- 176 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
considered; and whether the Committee
consciously or otherwise departed from
any of those directions.
26.33.3. Consideration of the Asian Surfing
Championship, 2025: Whether the
performance of the Petitioner at the
Asian Surfing Championship, 2025 was
actually considered by the Special
Selection Committee; what weight, if
any, was given to the Petitioner's Bronze
Medal performance; whether the same
criteria were applied to the performance
of Respondent No.5; and whether the
direction of the Appeals Panel that due
weight be given to the Asian
Championships was complied with.
26.33.4. Consideration of international
events from 01.01.2025: Whether all
International events commencing from
01.01.2025, which the Appeals Panel
had directed to be taken into
consideration, were in fact considered;
what data relating to those events was
placed before the Committee; whether
- 177 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
the data was complete and accurate;
whether the same method of assessment
was applied to both athletes; and
whether any relevant performance was
omitted, overlooked or given a different
treatment.
26.33.5. Application of Clause 5 of the
Selection Policy: Whether the Selection
Committee followed the Selection
Pathway prescribed under Clause 5;
whether the weightages and objective
criteria prescribed under the Policy were
correctly applied; whether the ranking
data, competition results and other
performance data were properly
compiled; whether any criterion was
ignored or introduced during the course
of the selection; and whether the
Committee recorded the basis on which
the final comparative assessment was
made.
26.33.6. Determination of the alleged tie:
Whether there was, in fact, a tie
between the Petitioner and Respondent
- 178 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
No.5 after the prescribed criteria had
been fully applied; or whether the
Committee reached a conclusion that
there was a tie because it was unable to
agree upon the manner in which the
criteria were to be applied. The inquiry
may examine the distinction between
these two situations, since a failure of
the members to agree on the method of
assessment is different from an equality
of results after the prescribed method
has been correctly applied.
26.33.7. Meaning and application of the tie-
break mechanism: Whether the tie-
break mechanism contained in the
Selection Policy was correctly understood
by the Committee; whether each stage
of that mechanism was applied in the
prescribed order; whether the head-to-
head results were properly considered;
whether the best single-event
performance was considered; whether
the second-best single-event
performance was considered; and
whether any further tie-break
- 179 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
contemplated by the Policy was reached
only after the preceding stages had been
exhausted.
26.33.8. Different number of events
participated in by the two athletes:
Whether the Committee properly dealt
with the fact that the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5 had participated in
different numbers of events; whether the
method of calculating or comparing
percentile scores was prescribed in
advance; whether such method was
contained in the Selection Policy or was
developed during the selection process;
whether the same method was applied
to both athletes; and whether the use of
such method materially affected the
comparative result.
26.33.9. Role of the General Secretary:
Whether the General Secretary was
competent to issue the clarification
sought by the Special Selection
Committee; what exactly was intended
by the communication dated
- 180 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
21.06.2026; whether the communication
merely provided information or
prescribed the sequence to be followed
by the Committee; whether the
Committee correctly understood that
communication; and whether the
Committee acted consistently with the
clarification after having specifically
sought it.
26.33.10. Sequence prescribed in the General
Secretary's clarification: Whether the
steps mentioned in the General
Secretary's communication were
intended to be followed sequentially;
whether the objective comparison and
the prescribed tie-break mechanism
were required to be completed before a
Surf-Off could be considered; whether
the Committee recorded any reason for
departing from that sequence; and, if it
considered the sequence ambiguous,
whether it sought any further
clarification before proceeding.
- 181 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
26.33.11. Deliberations of 21.06.2026: Whether
the minutes of the meeting accurately
record the matters discussed; what
issues remained unresolved when the
Committee met on 21.06.2026; whether
the members had completed the
assessment required under the Policy;
whether the voting exercise was
undertaken before or after the
prescribed criteria had been exhausted;
and whether the deadlock was a
deadlock on the sporting result or a
deadlock on the method by which the
result was to be determined.
26.33.12. Voting and deadlock: Whether the 2:2
voting result could, under the Selection
Policy, be treated as a final failure of the
Committee to select an athlete; whether
the Policy prescribed any consequence
for such a deadlock; whether the
Committee was required to proceed to
the next stage of the prescribed
mechanism; and whether it was open to
the Committee to recommend a Surf-Off
- 182 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
without first completing the earlier
stages.
26.33.13. Resignation of Ms. Nitisha Sethia:
Whether Ms. Nitisha Sethia resigned
from the Committee during the selection
process; the reasons recorded by her for
such resignation; whether her objections
related to the procedure adopted by the
Committee; whether her resignation
affected the quorum or composition of
the Committee; whether the remaining
members were legally entitled to
continue; and whether the Committee
ought to have obtained clarification
regarding its constitution before
proceeding further.
26.33.14. Effect of the resignation on
subsequent proceedings: Whether
any deliberation or decision taken after
the resignation was validly made by a
properly constituted Committee; whether
the resignation was recorded in the
minutes; whether the Committee
considered the concerns raised by the
- 183 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
resigning member; and whether the
remaining members had authority to
recommend a Surf-Off after the
Committee's composition had changed.
26.33.15. Recommendation for a Surf-Off:
Whether a Surf-Off was permissible
under the Selection Policy in the
circumstances which had arisen;
whether the conditions for conducting a
Surf-Off had been satisfied; whether the
Surf-Off was intended to be an additional
assessment or a substitute for the
prescribed tie-break process; whether
the decision to recommend it was
supported by reasons; and whether both
athletes would have been subjected to
identical conditions, judging standards
and evaluation criteria.
26.33.16. Timing of the proposed Surf-Off:
Whether the Policy contemplated a Surf-
Off at that stage of the process; whether
the time available before the prescribed
deadline made such an exercise
possible; whether the Committee had
- 184 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
considered the timeline prescribed in
Module 4; and whether the approaching
deadline was used as a reason to bypass
the earlier selection stages.
26.33.17. Communications with the Indian
Olympic Association: Whether the SFI
informed the Indian Olympic Association
of the deadlock in sufficient detail;
whether the SFI's request for additional
time was properly placed before the
competent authority; whether the IOA
responded to that request; whether any
extension was sought or could have been
obtained; and whether any
communication from the IOA authorised
the SFI to depart from its Selection
Policy.
26.33.18. Communication of the selected
names: Whether the names were
forwarded to the IOA before the
selection process had been lawfully
completed; who took the decision to
forward the names; what material was
placed before the person or body taking
- 185 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
that decision; whether the IOA was
informed that the Selection Committee
remained divided; and whether the
forwarding of the names was treated as
a final selection despite the unresolved
dispute.
26.33.19. Role of the Executive Council:
Whether the Executive Council's role
under Module 5 was limited to
ratification of provisional names
approved by the Selection Committee;
whether any provisional selection existed
in respect of the second confirmed
position; and, if not, whether the
Executive Council had any independent
authority to choose between the
Petitioner and Respondent No.5.
26.33.20. The “Executive Call”: The
circumstances in which the Executive
Council took what has been described as
the “Executive Call”; who proposed that
course; what reasons were recorded for
it; what material was considered;
whether the members were informed
- 186 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
that the Selection Committee had not
made a provisional selection; whether
the Executive Council considered the
Selection Policy and the Appeals Panel's
directions; and whether any provision of
the Policy was identified as conferring
power upon it to make an independent
selection.
26.33.21. Effect of the approaching deadline:
Whether the impending deadline for
submission of names materially affected
the manner in which the SFI proceeded;
whether sufficient time remained to
complete the prescribed procedure;
whether the SFI had taken timely steps
to resolve the deadlock; and whether the
urgency was the result of circumstances
beyond the SFI's control or arose from
the manner in which the selection
process had been conducted.
26.33.22. Whether the deadline justified
departure from the Policy: Whether,
in the absence of an express provision
permitting departure from the Policy, the
- 187 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
approaching deadline could lawfully
justify bypassing the prescribed selection
mechanism; and whether any approval
was obtained from the competent
authority before such departure was
made.
26.33.23. Possible bias or conflict of interest:
Whether any member of the Selection
Committee had a personal, institutional
or other interest which required
disclosure or recusal; whether any
allegation of bias was raised during the
proceedings; how such allegation was
dealt with; and whether the decision-
making process contained adequate
safeguards to ensure that both athletes
were treated equally. The inquiry need
not determine disputed allegations of
personal bias merely on assertion; it
should examine the underlying facts and
the manner in which any such concern
was addressed.
26.33.24. Equal treatment of the two athletes:
Whether the same data, criteria, events,
- 188 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
weightages and standards were applied
to the Petitioner and Respondent No.5;
whether any advantage was given to
either athlete by the manner in which
the criteria were interpreted; and
whether the Committee recorded
sufficient reasons to explain the
comparative assessment.
26.33.25. Reasons for the final decision:
Whether the Special Selection
Committee recorded clear reasons for its
conclusion; whether the Executive
Council recorded reasons for selecting
Respondent No.5; whether those reasons
were based on the Selection Policy and
material placed before the Committee;
and whether the reasons, if any, were
recorded contemporaneously or
developed only after the decision was
challenged.
26.33.26. Compliance with the Selection Policy
as a whole: Finally, whether the
Selection Policy was treated as a binding
framework throughout the selection
- 189 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
process or whether the procedure was
altered at different stages to meet the
immediate difficulty faced by the
authorities; and, if there was a
departure, whether the Policy contained
any provision permitting it and whether
the prescribed procedure for making
such departure was followed.
26.33.27. Role of the Indian Olympic
Association
26.33.28. Communication of the deadlock to
the IOA: Whether the SFI informed the
IOA, before forwarding the final names,
that the Special Selection Committee
remained deadlocked; what information
was supplied to the IOA regarding the
competing claims of the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5; and whether the IOA
was informed that the Selection
Committee had not made a provisional
selection in respect of the disputed
position.
26.33.29. Request for additional time: Whether
the SFI's communication dated
- 190 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
22.06.2026 requesting additional time to
resolve the deadlock and conduct a Surf-
Off was received by the IOA; when it
was received; who considered it; and
whether any decision was taken upon
that request.
26.33.30. Response or non-response of the
IOA: Whether the IOA responded to the
SFI's request before the names were
finally forwarded; if no response was
given, the reasons for such non-
response; whether the IOA had the
power to grant additional time or seek
clarification from the SFI; and whether
any internal consideration was
undertaken before accepting or
processing the names forwarded by the
SFI.
26.33.31. Knowledge of the procedural
dispute: Whether the IOA was aware
that the selection process itself was
disputed and that the Special Selection
Committee had not arrived at a final
decision; and, if so, whether the IOA
- 191 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
took any steps to ascertain whether the
Selection Policy had been followed before
accepting the names.
26.33.32. Acceptance of the names by the IOA:
Whether the IOA had any procedure for
examining the validity or completeness
of nominations received from a National
Sports Federation; whether that
procedure was followed in the present
case; and whether the IOA treated the
names forwarded by the SFI as final
despite being aware of the continuing
deadlock.
26.33.33. Consequence of the IOA's decision:
Whether any action or inaction on the
part of the IOA affected the ability of the
SFI to complete the selection in
accordance with the Policy; and whether
the forwarding or acceptance of the
names created the circumstances now
relied upon by the Respondents to
contend that the matter has become
irreversible.
26.33.34. Role of the Sports Authority of India
- 192 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
26.33.35. Receipt of the selection proposal:
Whether the SAI received the names or
the selection proposal from the SFI;
what material accompanied the
proposal; and whether the SAI was
informed of the deadlock within the
Special Selection Committee.
26.33.36. Examination of the selection
process: Whether the SAI had any role
under the applicable framework in
examining or approving the selection; if
so, whether that role was exercised in
the present case; and whether the SAI
examined compliance with the Selection
Policy and the directions of the Appeals
Panel.
26.33.37. Knowledge of the request for a Surf-
Off: Whether the SAI was informed that
the SFI had proposed a Surf-Off and had
sought additional time for that purpose;
whether the SAI considered the request;
and whether it communicated any view
or direction to the SFI, IOA or any other
concerned authority.
- 193 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
26.33.38. SAI's response to the disputed
selection: Whether the SAI was aware
that the Executive Council had selected
Respondent No.5 after the Special
Selection Committee had failed to reach
a decision; whether the SAI examined
the authority of the Executive Council to
take such a decision; and, if it accepted
or forwarded the selection, the reasons
for doing so.
26.33.39. Interaction between the three
authorities
26.33.40. Coordination between SFI, SAI and IOA:
Whether there was adequate
communication between the SFI, SAI
and IOA after the Special Selection
Committee became deadlocked; whether
each authority understood the stage at
which the selection process stood; and
whether any authority proceeded on the
assumption that another authority had
already approved or completed the
selection.
- 194 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
26.33.41. Responsibility for resolving the
deadlock: Whether, once the SFI
informed the IOA and/or SAI of the
deadlock, either authority was required
or entitled to provide directions or seek
clarification before the names were
finalised; and whether the failure to take
such action contributed to the
subsequent selection being made
without completion of the prescribed
process.
26.33.42. Effect of the deadline: Whether the
deadline of 23.06.2026 was known
sufficiently in advance to all concerned
authorities; what steps each authority
took before that date; whether the delay
arose from the conduct of the selection
process; and whether the approaching
deadline could lawfully justify departure
from the Selection Policy.
26.33.43. Responsibility for the final
communication: Who ultimately took
the decision to communicate the names
to the IOA; on what date and at what
- 195 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
time; what information was available at
that time; and whether the person or
authority making the communication
was aware that the Special Selection
Committee had not completed the
selection process.
26.33.44. Whether any authority treated
urgency as overriding the Policy:
Whether the SFI, SAI or IOA proceeded
on the basis that the approaching
deadline permitted the prescribed
selection process to be shortened or
bypassed; and, if so, whether there was
any provision in the governing rules
which authorised such a course.
26.33.45. The aspects referred to above are
illustrative and not exhaustive. The
Inquiry Commission shall be at liberty to
enquire into such other or further
aspects as may arise in the course of the
inquiry and as the Commission may
consider necessary for a full, fair and
comprehensive examination of the
- 196 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
selection process and the role of the
authorities and persons concerned.
26.34. The inquiry Commission may also examine the
relevant minutes, attendance records, emails,
communications, score sheets, ranking data,
event results, performance assessments, video
recordings, notes of the Selection Committee
meetings, the General Secretary's clarification,
the Appeals Panel's order, the Executive Council
resolution and the communications exchanged
with the IOA and SAI. These records would
assist in determining not merely what decision
was ultimately taken, but how and on what
material that decision came to be taken.
26.35. The inquiry should, however, remain confined
to the decision-making process and the conduct
of the persons responsible for it. It should not
become a fresh selection exercise. It should not
determine whether the Petitioner or
Respondent No.5 was the better athlete. The
object is to determine whether the prescribed
procedure was followed, why it was not
followed if there was a departure, and what
- 197 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
steps may be necessary to prevent a
recurrence.
26.36. The inquiry commission may further consider
whether the present Selection Policy requires
clearer provisions for dealing with a deadlock,
including the precise sequence of tie-break
criteria, the effect of an equally divided
Selection Committee, the circumstances in
which a Surf-Off can be ordered, the role of the
General Secretary, and the circumstances, if
any, in which the Executive Council may act
without a prior provisional selection by the
Selection Committee.
26.37. Such an inquiry would also provide an
opportunity to examine whether the Selection
Policy itself requires greater clarity. The present
dispute has exposed difficulties concerning the
manner in which a deadlock is to be resolved,
the relationship between the Selection
Committee and the Executive Council, and the
circumstances in which a Surf-Off may be
conducted.
26.38. The inquiry commission may therefore, if
considered appropriate, suggest changes to the
- 198 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Selection Policy so that similar disputes do not
arise in future. In particular, the Policy may
require clearer provisions regarding the order
of the tie-break process, the consequence of a
deadlock in the Selection Committee, the role
of the Executive Council in such a situation, and
the circumstances in which a Surf-Off may be
directed. Necessary policies for selection,
working off the federation, bye laws etc., could
also be examined by the Commission and if
necessary to reconsider such amendments as
may be necessary.
26.39. While examining the Asiad's selection policy,
which is the subject matter of the above WP,
the Commission may also examine the selection
policies of athletes for any other tournaments,
as well as such other policies, as may be
applicable to athletes during the administration
of Respondent No.4 SFI.
26.40. Nature of the inquiry: The inquiry should not
be treated as a finding of personal guilt against
any member of the Selection Committee or
Executive Council. It should be a fact-finding
exercise to ascertain how the selection process
- 199 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
was conducted and why the Policy was not
followed in the manner required.
26.41. Every person whose conduct is examined must
be given notice of the matter concerning him or
her and a fair opportunity to explain the
circumstances. No adverse conclusion should
be reached without giving the concerned
person an opportunity of being heard. If despite
notice having been issued the concerned
person does not appear before the enquiry
commission, the commission would be free to
draw such inference as it may deem just.
26.42. The above are but some items that could be
considered by the commission and are
indicative, the one man enquiry commission
may consider such other relevant aspects as it
may deem just.
26.43. This Court therefore reaches the following
conclusion. The selection of Respondent No.5
as the second confirmed athlete and the
consequential placement of the Petitioner as
the first reserve athlete is vitiated by the
defects already found under Points No.2, 3 and
- 200 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
4. Ordinarily, such a selection would call for
interference.
26.44. However, having regard to the imminent Asian
Games, the stage already reached in processing
the names, the communication of the names to
the concerned international authorities, and the
real possibility that a change at this stage may
affect India's quota and representation in men's
surfing, the Court considers it inappropriate to
quash the selection or recall the list at this
stage.
26.45. This limited restraint is based only on the
practical consequences of disturbing the
selection at this stage. It is not an approval of
the selection process, nor does it mean that the
Petitioner had no legitimate grievance. The
Court has already found the process to be
defective.
26.46. At the same time, the persons responsible for
the process cannot treat the Court's decision
not to disturb the final list as an endorsement
of their actions. A National Sports Federation
which frames a Selection Policy is expected to
follow it. The urgency of an approaching
- 201 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
sporting event cannot become a reason for
ignoring the rules which govern the selection.
26.47. The Court is therefore of the view that the
appropriate relief, in the circumstances of the
present case, is to decline to disturb the
present selection while directing an
independent inquiry into the manner in which
the selection process was conducted. The
inquiry will also provide an opportunity to
identify changes that may be required in the
Selection Policy to prevent a similar situation in
future.
26.48. Before parting this court makes it clear that
nothing in this order shall be understood as
expressing any opinion, one way or the other,
on whether the Petitioner or Respondent No.5 is
the better athlete, or on who ought, as a
matter of sporting merit, to occupy the second
confirmed position; that question has not been
decided by this Court, is not to be answered by
the inquiry directed above, which is confined to
the conduct of the decision-makers and not the
comparative merit of the athletes, and nothing
in this order shall be read or relied upon by
- 202 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
either athlete, or by the SFI, as a finding one
way or the other on that question.
26.49. This Court is also conscious that the
competitive life of most sportspersons is short,
and that a sportsperson has only a limited
number of years in which to make full use of
his or her youth, fitness and form to achieve
what he or she is capable of achieving; unlike
many other pursuits, that window, once lost,
does not return. Events such as the Asian
Games and the Olympic Games do not recur
from year to year, but only once in four years,
and the non-selection of a deserving and
qualifying sportsperson from such an event,
whether on account of an erroneous process or
otherwise, is capable of causing consequences,
both to the individual sportsperson and to the
country's representation, that cannot always be
undone by a later correction. It is this
consideration, among those already recorded,
that has weighed with this Court in declining, at
this stage, to disturb the selection presently in
place.
- 203 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
26.50. Since this Court has not interfered with the
selection of the athletes presently forwarded for
the Asian Games, this Court places on record
its good wishes to Respondent No.5 and to
every other member of the Indian surfing
contingent selected for the Games as also to
the entire Indian Contingent representing
various sporting disciplines to the Asian Games,
and hopes that they compete with distinction
and return victorious, with medals, holding the
national flag high.
26.51. This Court reiterates, for the avoidance of any
doubt, that nothing in this order is a comment
upon, or a finding as to, the performance or the
ability of Respondent No.5 or of any other
selected sportsperson; the findings recorded in
this order concern only the process by which
the decision was made, and not the decision
itself, or the sportsperson who is its beneficiary.
The Petitioner and Respondent No.5 are both
accordingly at liberty, and are indeed advised,
to proceed with their training and, as the case
may be, their participation, without being in
any manner influenced or affected by the
pendency or the outcome of these proceedings.
- 204 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
26.52. This Court cannot conclude its consideration of
this Point without expressing its anguish that
sportspersons, whose energies ought to be
directed entirely towards competing in their
chosen sport, find themselves instead
compelled to approach a Court of law, and to
remain embroiled in litigation of this nature, on
account of lapses that are attributable not to
them, but to the very Federation that exists to
serve them. That such proceedings should have
become necessary at all is a matter of regret,
and this Court trusts that the directions
contained in this order will make a recurrence
of such a situation less likely in the future.
26.53. This court answers point No.5 by holding that
the selection of Respondent No.5 as the second
confirmed athlete and the consequential
placement of the Petitioner as the first reserve
athlete are vitiated by the illegalities found
under Points No.2, 3 and 4. However,
considering the advanced stage of the Asian
Games arrangements and the possible
prejudice to India's participation if the present
selection is disturbed, the Court declines to
quash the selection or recall the names already
- 205 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
forwarded. Instead, an independent fact-finding
inquiry shall be conducted into the manner in
which the Special Selection Committee and the
Executive Council proceeded with the selection.
27. Answer to Point No.6: What order?
27.1. In view of the findings recorded and the
answers given to the Points for Determination
above, this Court passes the following
ORDER
i. The writ petition is partly allowed , in the
following terms.
ii. This Court records that the decision of
Respondent No.4 dated 23.06.2026
(Annexure-H), in so far as it selects
Respondent No.5 as the second confirmed
athlete and places the Petitioner as the
first reserve athlete, is vitiated by the
illegalities recorded under Points No.2, 3
and 4 of this order and would, in the
ordinary course, be liable to be quashed.
This Court places on record its disapproval
of the manner in which Respondent No.4
conducted the fresh selection process, for
- 206 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
the reasons recorded under Point No.5,
and makes it clear that Respondent No.4,
as a public institution discharging public
duties, is required to act strictly in
accordance with law and its own published
Selection Policy, and shall not permit a
recurrence of the infirmities recorded in
this order. However, for the reasons
recorded under Point No.5, this Court
declines to issue a Writ of Certiorari
quashing that decision, and declines to
direct Respondent No.3 to recall the
forwarded list of selected athletes.
iii. For the like reasons, this Court declines to
issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the
Selection public summaries dated
20.06.2026 and 21.06.2026 (Annexures E
and F). Prayer (ii) is accordingly not
granted in the form sought.
iv. The prayer for a direction to Respondent
No.4 to constitute a fresh selection
committee to select the athletes afresh, in
place of the impugned selection, is not
granted, for the reasons recorded under
- 207 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Point No.5. The concerns underlying this
prayer, namely, that the selection be
conducted properly and in accordance
with the Selection Policy in future, are
addressed through the inquiry directed,
which extends to suggesting appropriate
changes to the Selection Policy and the
SFI's working generally.
v. For the reasons recorded under Point
No.5, this Court directs an inquiry into the
conduct of the members of the Special
Selection Committee who participated in
the meetings of 16.06.2026 and
21.06.2026, and of the members of the
Executive Council of the SFI who took the
decision described as the "Executive Call"
on or about 23.06.2026, which would
include aspects of why the Selection Policy
framed by the SFI, and the directions of
the Appeals Panel dated 16.06.2026, were
not followed in the manner recorded
under Points No.2, 3 and 4 of this order.
vi. This Court, prior to the passing of this
order, caused enquiries to be made of
- 208 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
Hon'ble Mr Justice R V Raveendran ,
former Judge of the Supreme Court of
India, as to his Lordship's willingness to
conduct the inquiry, and his Lordship has
consented to do so. This order shall itself
constitute sufficient authority for his
Lordship to proceed with the inquiry,
without any further reference to this Court
being necessary for that purpose. The
Registrar General of this Court shall,
within one week from today, communicate
a certified copy of this order, together with
a copy of the entire records of this matter
to Hon'ble Mr Justice R V Raveendran.
vii. The one man committee of Hon'ble Mr
Justice R V Raveendran, shall be entitled
to such secretarial assistance,
infrastructure and honorarium as his
Lordship may fix, having regard to the
nature and duration of the inquiry, and
shall further be at liberty to avail the
assistance of such other persons,
including experts in sports law and in the
administration of national sports
federations, as his Lordship may consider
- 209 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
necessary for the proper conduct of the
inquiry, all of which cost shall be borne by
Respondent No.4-SFI. Costs of at least 6
sittings so fixed shall be deposited in
advance, from time to time.
viii. Respondent No.4, and every member of
its Selection Committee, Special Selection
Committee and Executive Council whose
conduct falls within the scope of the
inquiry, shall extend full cooperation,
including production of all records,
minutes and correspondence called for.
Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall extend
such cooperation as may be required of by
Hon'ble Mr Justice R V Raveendran for the
conduct of the inquiry.
ix. The enquiry shall be conducted at
Bangalore at such place as may be fixed
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran.
At the discretion of His Lordship, the
enquiry may also be conducted, wholly or
partly, in hybrid mode through online
proceedings. In the event any travel is
necessitated for the purpose of conducting
- 210 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
the enquiry, the expenses towards such
travel and stay at a suitable five-star hotel
shall be borne by Respondent No. 4–SFI.
x. All documents, records and other
materials as may be required for the
purposes of the enquiry shall be produced
and placed before His Lordship at
Bangalore, irrespective of the place where
such documents, records or materials are
stored, maintained or otherwise kept.
xi. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran shall
be at liberty to formulate and adopt such
procedure as His Lordship may consider
appropriate for the conduct of the enquiry.
Any ruling, direction or decision of His
Lordship on any procedural or other
matter arising during the conduct of the
enquiry shall be final and binding upon all
parties to the enquiry.
xii. The enquiry report may be submitted
preferably by 01.02.2027 to the Registrar
General of this Court, with copies to the
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, the
Indian Olympic Association, and SFI.
- 211 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:46925
WP No. 20663 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010460102026
xiii. The inquiry is in the nature of a fact-
finding and advisory exercise; no finding
recorded in this order shall be treated as a
pre-determination of its outcome, and
nothing in this order or in the inquiry shall
be read as a finding on the comparative
sporting merit of the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5.
xiv. Though the above matter is disposed of,
to consider the enquiry report submitted,
re-list on 12.02.2027.
This Court has been assisted by Ms.Harshada, Law
Clerk, in reviewing this Judgment.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2