Delhi High Court denies Vinesh Phogat interim access to World Wrestling Championship selection trials, citing uniform eligibility criteria amid maternity-policy challenge

The petitioner, a competitive wrestler, remained absent from competition during 2024–2025 due to pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum recovery. The International Testing Agency confirmed that she could compete from 1 January 2026. WFI’s Asian Games Selection Policy dated 25 February 2026 required participation in specified qualifying competitions, which the petitioner had been unable to attend during her maternity-related absence.

The petitioner was also prevented from participating in the Senior Open Ranking Tournament at Gonda after WFI issued a show-cause notice dated 9 May 2026 declaring her ineligible to participate in WFI events until 26 June 2026. The Division Bench subsequently permitted her to participate in the Asian Games Selection Trials, where she reached the semi-final in the 53 kg category. WFI later issued a second show-cause notice alleging misconduct during those trials. Neither show-cause proceeding had culminated in a final order.

On 7 September 2026, WFI issued a circular prescribing eligibility criteria for the Selection Trials for the 2026 Senior World Wrestling Championships. The petitioner sought provisional permission to participate in the trials scheduled for 14 September 2026, contending that the circular failed to accommodate athletes returning after pregnancy and childbirth and that her non-participation in certain qualifying events was attributable to maternity-related absence and WFI’s earlier order.

WFI opposed the application, relying on the uniform eligibility criteria and the petitioner’s pending disciplinary proceedings.

1. Whether the petitioner should be provisionally permitted to participate in the Selection Trials despite not satisfying the eligibility criteria prescribed in WFI’s Circular dated 7 September 2026.

2. Whether the petitioner’s pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum absence, and her alleged exclusion from the Gonda tournament, justified an interim exemption from the uniformly applicable eligibility criteria.

3. Whether the pendency of disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner’s failure to avail repeated opportunities before WFI’s Disciplinary Committee were relevant circumstances while considering interim relief.

4. Whether granting the requested relief would improperly create a special exception for the petitioner before the validity of the selection policy was finally adjudicated.

The Court applied the principle that participation in selection trials is subject to the eligibility criteria prescribed by the competent sporting federation and that an athlete has no vested right to participate contrary to those criteria, even where the athlete seeks only participation and not automatic selection.

A uniformly applicable selection criterion should not ordinarily be relaxed in favour of one candidate at the interim stage, particularly where doing so may prejudice similarly situated athletes or effectively create an exception before the policy’s validity is adjudicated.

The Court also treated relevant subsequent developments, including pending disciplinary proceedings and the failure to avail repeated opportunities to appear before the disciplinary committee, as circumstances relevant to the exercise of interim discretion, without deciding the merits of the allegations.

The Court expressly left open the broader question whether a selection policy must provide a mechanism for athletes returning to sport after pregnancy and childbirth.

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s maternity-related absence and her alleged inability to participate in the Gonda tournament could be relevant to the ultimate challenge to WFI’s selection framework.

However, the Circular dated 7 September 2026 applied uniformly to all athletes and was not framed specifically against the petitioner.

Since the petitioner admittedly did not fall within the prescribed eligibility categories, permitting her to participate provisionally would amount to carving out a special exception before determining whether the policy itself was arbitrary or discriminatory.

The Court further held that the earlier Division Bench order permitting participation in the Asian Games Selection Trials was confined to the circumstances of that case and did not confer a continuing exemption from future eligibility requirements.

The pending second show-cause notice, although not adjudicated on merits, was relevant because it arose from the very trials in which the petitioner had earlier been permitted to participate. The petitioner’s failure to attend the first three disciplinary opportunities, while raising objections concerning the committee’s composition, also weighed against granting discretionary interim relief.

The Court nevertheless clarified that it was expressing no final opinion on either the validity of the Circular or the disciplinary allegations.

The application, CM APPL. 61231/2026, was dismissed without expressing any final opinion on the validity of the Circular dated 7 September 2026 or the merits of the disciplinary proceedings.

The writ petition remained part-heard and was listed for further hearing on 29 September 2026.