Delhi HC denies Vinesh Phogat entry to World Championships selection trials

The Delhi High Court has refused to allow wrestler Vinesh Phogat to compete in the women’s selection trials for the 2026 Senior World Championships, saying the eligibility rules cannot be relaxed for one athlete before the validity of the policy is decided.

Phogat, who became a mother in July 2025 and recently returned from maternity leave, had sought permission to participate in the trials scheduled at the Indira Gandhi Stadium on 14th September.

In a late-night interim order issued on Thursday, justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said granting an exception to Phogat could affect other athletes facing similar circumstances who were not before the court.

The court said national selection for an international championship involved considerations beyond an individual athlete’s claim and must follow a fair, uniform and performance-based process.

“This court is also mindful that selection to represent the country at an international championship carries with it considerations extending beyond the individual claim of any particular athlete. The interest of the country in ensuring that its representatives are selected through a fair, uniform and performance-based process is of paramount importance,” justice Sharma said.

However, the court said it would examine the broader issue of balancing pregnancy and motherhood with the demands of a professional sporting career.

“This court is also conscious that the larger question as to how motherhood and maternity are to be balanced against the demands of a sporting career, and whether an athlete ought to require to choose between motherhood and pursuing her career, merits careful consideration,” the judge said.

The court clarified that this question would be considered during the final adjudication of the case.

Phogat had sought a stay on a 7th September circular issued by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI), which laid down the eligibility conditions for the selection trials.

The trials will determine India’s women’s wrestling contingent for the Senior World Championships in Astana, Kazakhstan, from 24 October to 1 November. They cover six Olympic weight categories.

Phogat contended that the framework created a closed selection pathway by limiting eligibility to athletes who had participated and performed in specified qualifying competitions.

According to her plea, she was excluded not because her sporting ability had been assessed and found inadequate, but because she could not participate in the qualifying events identified by the WFI while she was pregnant and recovering after childbirth.

She argued that the selection policy contained no provision for athletes who missed the prescribed tournaments because of pregnancy, maternity leave or postpartum recovery.

The court acknowledged that Phogat’s circumstances would need to be considered when determining the validity of the policy. However, it held that these factors did not automatically entitle her to participate in the trials in violation of the current eligibility requirements.

“To reiterate, the criteria prescribed under the circular dated 7th September 2026 apply uniformly to all athletes. An athlete who has not participated in the prescribed competitions, for whatever reason, would not fall within the eligibility categories specified by respondent no. 1 (WFI),” the order said.

The court observed that permitting Phogat to compete through a special dispensation could result in unequal treatment and prove unfair to other athletes across the country. It could also open a “Pandora’s box”, with others seeking similar exemptions.

Phogat filed the application as part of a pending petition seeking the creation of a fair and structured framework for women athletes returning to competitive sport following pregnancy and maternity leave.

The High Court had previously sought responses from the WFI and the Centre on the petition.

In a separate case, Phogat has challenged two show-cause notices issued by the WFI on 9 May and 17 June, as well as the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her. She has alleged that the notices form part of a continuing pattern of “arbitrary and mala fide action” intended to obstruct her return to competitive wrestling after maternity.

With PTI inputs