### Maternity must be treated as a professional accommodation, ensuring motherhood does not disqualify athletes from national selection trials.

The Appellant, a decorated international wrestler, challenged an order of the learned Single Judge which refused interim stay against the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) Selection Policy and Circular.

These documents excluded her from the 2026 Asian Games Selection Trials because she had not participated in domestic championships in 2025-2026.

The Appellant was on a disclosed maternity sabbatical from late 2024 until August 2025, during which she gave birth.

Additionally, the WFI issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 09.05.2026, rendering her ineligible until June 2026 based on her disqualification at the Paris Olympics—an issue already adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Appellant argued the criteria were discriminatory and the SCN was mala fide.

1. Whether the selection criteria and the subsequent Show Cause Notice were arbitrarily and discriminatorily applied to exclude the Appellant.

2. Whether the Appellant should be granted interim protection to participate in the Selection Trials pending the final disposal of the Writ Petition.

The court primarily applied the principles of non-discrimination and substantive equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court relied on the doctrine that maternity cannot be treated as a professional disability or a ground for adverse treatment in a career.

The court also referenced the "Guidelines for the National Coaching Camp" which provide discretionary powers to the Federation to exempt "iconic players" from certain qualifying rigors.

The court noted the legal finality of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) findings, which had cleared the athlete of any "wrongdoing" during the Paris Olympics.

The court reasoned that the Appellant’s absence from the 2025 domestic championships was a direct result of her pregnancy and post-partum recovery, which are physiological realities that institutional frameworks must accommodate.

It found that the WFI's current rigid framework departed from past practices of granting leeway to "iconic players," effectively converting a maternity sabbatical into a disqualifying factor.

The court characterized the WFI’s SCN—which labeled the Appellant’s Olympic disqualification a "national embarrassment"—as retrograde and potentially vindictive, especially since the CAS had already exonerated her of misconduct.

It concluded that if interim relief were denied, the Writ Petition would become infructuous as the trials (May 30-31) would conclude before the next hearing (July 6).

It directed that: (i) the Appellant be permitted to participate in the Selection Trials on 30.05.2026 and 31.05.2026; (ii) the WFI video-record the trials; and (iii) the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS) appoint two independent observers from the SAI and IOA to submit a report to the Single Judge. The court clarified that the underlying legality of the Policy and SCN remains subject to the final adjudication of the pending Writ Petition.