Facts
The Appellants, international Dressage riders, challenged their placement in the "Reserve List" for the 20th Asian Games (Japan, 2026) by the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI).
Source reference: p. 2-3The Selection Criteria (Version 4.0) prescribed Minimum Eligibility Requirements (MER) based on horse-rider performance in three tests: Prix St. Georges (PSG), Intermediate-I, and Intermediate-I Freestyle.
Source reference: p. 3-4EFI issued an Amendment on 17.04.2026, requiring at least one MER during a "Peak-window" (17.04.2026–15.06.2026).
Source reference: p. 6-7On 16.06.2026, EFI published a Selection List placing the Appellants as Reserves 1 and 2.
Source reference: p. 7The Appellants alleged EFI bypassed mandatory procedures under Clause 15(b)—which required a Training Period and further competitions for "Probables" before finalization—and improperly calculated merit.
Source reference: p. 11-12, 16A Single Judge dismissed their Writ Petitions on 29.06.2026, leading to these appeals.
Source reference: p. 2, 8Issues
1. Whether the EFI prepared the Selection List in strict conformity with the published Selection Criteria and its subsequent Amendment
Source reference: p. 31/para. 312. Whether the non-compliance with the mandatory Training Period competitions under Clause 15(b) vitiates the final Selection List
Source reference: p. 31/para. 333. Whether the comparative merit assessment between horse-rider combinations was conducted rationally based on Team vs. Individual MER categories
Source reference: p. 36/para. 47-49Law Applied
The court applied the principle of limited judicial review in sporting selections, establishing that courts will not sit in appeal over expert committees unless decisions are arbitrary or contrary to law.
Source reference: p. 31/para. 32It interpreted Clause 13(g) and 8(f) of the Selection Criteria, which mandate that combinations with "Individual MERs" rank higher than those with only "Team MERs".
Source reference: p. 4, 36Clause 13(d) was applied to resolve ties in the same MER category based on the highest cumulative percentage scores.
Source reference: p. 5, 38The court also noted the power to amend criteria under Clause 15(f) in "compelling circumstances".
Source reference: p. 6, 34Reasoning
The court found that EFI failed to comply with Clause 15(b), as it did not conduct the mandatory competitions for "Probables" during a Training Period to finalize merit.
Source reference: p. 32-33/para. 38EFI’s justifications—paucity of time and the "Peak-window" amendment—were found insufficient because EFI failed to formally invoke its amendment powers under Clause 15(f) to dispense with these trials.
Source reference: p. 34/para. 42-43Regarding merit calculation, the court held that Rank Nos. 1-3 were correctly placed because they achieved "Individual MERs," which are contractually superior to the "Team MERs" achieved by the Appellants.
Source reference: p. 36/para. 47It rejected Mr. Agarwalla’s claim for higher ranking because his best scores from CDI Hagen were invalid due to non-participation in all three mandatory tests (PSG, Int-I, Int-I Freestyle).
Source reference: p. 37/para. 51-52For Ms. Hajela, the court held that among those with Team MERs, Mr. Chheda was correctly ranked higher under Clause 13(d) due to a superior cumulative aggregate score across all three tests.
Source reference: p. 38/para. 54Holding
The court held that while EFI committed procedural lapses by failing to follow Clauses 15(a) and 15(b), the underlying merit list was prepared rationally according to the technical hierarchical rules of Individual vs. Team MERs.
The court declined to interfere with the Selection List because the 15.07.2026 entry deadline made fresh trials logistically "impracticable". The court dismissed the appeals, permitting the current team to proceed in the national interest while directing EFI to strictly comply with Selection Criteria in the future.
Source reference: p. 39/para. 56, 57-58Original Court PDF
Sudipti HajelavsEquestrian Federation Of India & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in