Courts cannot compel athlete selection when notified eligibility criteria are unmet absent arbitrariness.

The petitioners, para-badminton athletes, sought inclusion in India’s contingent for the 2026 Asian Para Games.

Respondent No. 3 had sought their consent and doubles-partner details, and they also underwent anti-doping tests; however, their names were excluded from the selection list published on 12 October 2026.

The respondents stated that the petitioners did not meet the notified selection criteria dated 24 September 2025.

Under Clause 4.1(II)(a), nomination required either a sixth-place or better finish at the relevant Senior Asian Championship or a world ranking among the top six athletes of Asian nations by the specified cut-off date.

The petitioners’ Asian rankings as of 21 July 2026 were ninth, ninth, tenth and ninth, respectively.

They sought, among other reliefs, inclusion in the contingent and an order preventing withdrawal of their names from recommendations.

1. Whether the petitioners’ exclusion from the Indian contingent was arbitrary or illegal, warranting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Whether their consent to participate, submission of doubles-partner details and completion of anti-doping tests created a right to selection despite their failure to meet the notified criteria.

3. Whether the Court could direct a change to the finalised contingent at that stage.

Article 226 permits judicial review of a selection decision where the decision is shown to be arbitrary or illegal; it does not authorise the Court to substitute its view for that of the competent authorities on athlete eligibility absent such a defect.

Clause 4.1(II)(a) of the selection criteria dated 24 September 2025 made an athlete eligible for nomination only if the athlete had achieved a sixth-place or better finish at the specified Senior Asian Championship, or had a world ranking among the top six athletes of Asian nations as of the prescribed date.

The judgment cites no other statute or precedent.

The petitioners’ Asian rankings were outside the top-six threshold, and the judgment identifies no qualifying championship result or demonstrated departure from the notified criteria.

Their prior achievements, participation-related communications and anti-doping tests did not amount to final selection or confer an indefeasible right to inclusion.

The Court therefore found no basis to characterise their exclusion as arbitrary or illegal.

It also declined to direct alteration of the contingent, which had already been finalised and acted upon and whose amendment would require multiple administrative clearances.

The petition and any pending applications were dismissed.