Delhi HC Allows Vinesh Phogat to Compete in Asian Games Trials; Babita Reacts

"Welcome court's decision," says Babita Phogat as Delhi HC allows Vinesh's participation in Asian Games selection trials

Dharamshala, May 24

Delhi HC's decision comes after the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) declared Vinesh ineligible for domestic wrestling. Phogat, a former wrestler herself, said the Delhi High Court's decision was correct and welcomed it.

"I accept the court's decision, and the court's decision is the right one. Whatever the case may be, the court has already made its decision. Nothing is bigger than the court, so we should welcome the court's decision and thank the court," Babita told ANI.

On Sunday, the Delhi HC not only directed that Vinesh be allowed to participate in the Asian Games selection trials, but also ordered that the trials be video-recorded and monitored by independent observers from the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).

The WFI had issued a show-cause notice to Phogat on May 9. The federation raised several issues against Vinesh, including her failure to meet the weight limit during the 2024 Summer Olympics, alleged anti-doping whereabouts failures, and her participation in two weight categories during the trials for an Olympic qualifier.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia passed the directions while hearing Phogat's appeal against an interim order of a single judge Bench, which had not granted her interim relief in the pending writ petition challenging the Wrestling Federation of India's (WFI) selection policy and a show cause notice issued against her.

The Court directed that Phogat shall be permitted to participate in the selection trials, the entire process shall be video-recorded by WFI, and two independent observers nominated by SAI and IOA shall oversee the trials and submit a report before the Single Judge hearing the matter.

While granting interim relief, the Bench made significant observations on the maternity rights of female athletes.

The Court observed that motherhood cannot be treated as a professional impediment or a circumstance warranting adverse treatment. It further said that a legal or regulatory framework that disadvantages a woman athlete due to pregnancy or post-partum recovery would violate the principles of equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Bench noted that female athletes face extraordinary physical challenges during pregnancy and the post-partum period, which are often insufficiently acknowledged in sporting frameworks. The Court said motherhood deserves accommodation and institutional sensitivity, and should not become a ground for exclusion or marginalisation.

Phogat had challenged the WFI's Asian Games Selection Policy dated February 25, 2026 and a subsequent circular dated May 6, 2026, which restricted eligibility for the selection trials to medal winners from specified domestic tournaments conducted in 2025 and 2026.

According to the order, Phogat had informed the International Testing Agency (ITA) in December 2024 that she was taking a sabbatical on account of pregnancy and intended to return to competition later. She gave birth to her first child in July 2025 and resumed training thereafter. The ITA subsequently confirmed that she would be eligible to compete from January 1, 2026 onwards.

The Court observed that because of her maternity-related absence, Phogat could not participate in the championships that formed the basis for eligibility under the WFI policy, resulting in her exclusion from the selection trials. The Bench prima facie found the policy and circular to be arbitrary and discriminatory as they restricted participation only to medal winners from specific events, thereby excluding athletes like Phogat.

The Court also made strong remarks against the observations made by WFI in the show-cause notice issued to Phogat over the Paris Olympics 2024 weigh-in controversy. Referring to remarks describing the incident as a "national embarrassment," the Bench termed such observations "deplorable" and said they appeared vindictive and premeditated, particularly when the Court of Arbitration for Sport had already observed that there was no wrongdoing on Phogat's part.

At the same time, the Division Bench clarified that it had not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case and that the pending writ petition before the Single Judge would be decided independently on its own merits.

— ANI