A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, while questioning the exclusionary nature of the eligibility criteria framed by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI), directed the federation to allow Phogat to participate in the trials scheduled for May 30 and 31 and ordered that the process be video-recorded.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cMotherhood must be viewed as a natural and deeply significant aspect of life that deserves accommodation and institutional sensitivity. Therefore, the law must ensure that motherhood does not become a ground for exclusion or marginalisation of female athletes such as the Appellant,\u201d the Delhi High Court said.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Allowing Phogat\u2019s appeal against the earlier interim order passed by a single judge, the CJ Upadhyaya-led Bench said the three-time Olympian had made out a prima facie case against the WFI\u2019s Asian Games selection policy and the circular restricting participation in the trials to medal winners of select domestic events conducted in 2025 and 2026.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
It observed that the policy framework failed to account for Phogat\u2019s maternity-related sabbatical and post-partum recovery period, which coincided with the qualifying tournaments prescribed under the eligibility criteria.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cIn the present case, the Appellant\u2019s exclusion from the Selection Trials is directly attributable to the sabbatical and temporary retirement from her sporting activities,\u201d the CJ Upadhyaya-led Bench held.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
The order also strongly disapproved of the language used in the WFI\u2019s show-cause notice issued to Phogat earlier this month, particularly its characterisation of her disqualification from the Paris Olympics 2024 final after failing the weigh-in as a \u201cnational embarrassment\u201d.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Calling the remarks \u201cdeplorable\u201d, the Delhi High Court said the observations appeared \u201cpre-mediated\u201d and \u201cvindictive\u201d, especially when the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had already recorded that there was \u201cno wrongdoing\u201d on Phogat\u2019s part.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cSuch observations are retrograde and show the mala fide intent of Respondent No.1 (WFI) by being vindictive against the Appellant,\u201d the CJ Upadhyaya-led Bench said.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Observing that motherhood and childbirth posed extraordinary physical challenges for female athletes, it stressed that institutional sporting frameworks could not remain oblivious to those realities.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cA legal and regulatory framework that either expressly or impliedly disadvantages a woman on account of pregnancy or post-partum recovery would clearly violate the principles of non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution,\u201d the Delhi High Court said.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
It also took note of past WFI practices, including earlier guidelines permitting \u201ciconic players\u201d to participate in selection trials despite not satisfying standard eligibility conditions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
The order said that the revised policy marked a \u201csignificant deviation\u201d from earlier practice and prima facie appeared arbitrary by limiting participation only to medal winners from specified competitions held during 2025 and 2026.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Allowing the appeal, the Delhi High Court directed that Phogat be permitted to participate in the selection trials, while clarifying that her participation would be subject to the outcome of the pending writ petition before the single-judge Bench.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
It also directed the Union government to nominate two independent observers from the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) to oversee the trials and submit a report before the single judge hearing the main matter.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
The CJ Upadhyaya-led Bench clarified that it had not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case and that all issues relating to the validity of the WFI\u2019s policy, selection criteria and show-cause notice would be decided in the pending writ petition.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Phogat had challenged the WFI\u2019s Asian Games selection policy dated February 25, 2026, the selection circular issued on May 6, and the show-cause notice dated May 9, contending that they unfairly excluded her from the trials.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
The wrestler argued that despite duly informing the International Testing Agency (ITA), United World Wrestling (UWW) and the SAI about her maternity-related sabbatical, she was rendered ineligible from participating in WFI events till June 26, 2026.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
During the hearing, the WFI had opposed the plea, arguing that the policy and circular were uniformly applicable to all athletes and that the federation lacked discretion to carve out exemptions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
The wrestler argued that despite duly informing the International Testing Agency (ITA), United World Wrestling (UWW) and the SAI about her maternity-related sabbatical, she was rendered ineligible from participating in WFI events till June 26, 2026.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cIn the interest of sport and justice\u2026 it is necessary that the Appellant is permitted to participate in the Selection Trials,\u201d the order said.<\/p>\r\n\r\n