The Supreme Court on Thursday (June 4, 2026) dismissed an appeal filed by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) against a Delhi High Court order allowing senior wrestler Vinesh Phogat to participate in the selection trials for the Asian Games 2026. The court, however, clarified that the dismissal of the appeal should not be construed as an endorsement of the adverse observations made by the High Court against the federation.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar observed that the appeal had become infructuous since the selection trials had already been held, in which Ms. Phogat participated but lost.
“In view of the subsequent developments, the present special leave petition has become infructuous”, the Bench said.

On May 29, the Supreme Court had permitted Ms. Phogat to participate in the selection trials, while cautioning that swift and sweeping judicial interventions could sometimes aggravate disputes involving sporting bodies, athletes and players.
On Thursday (June 4, 2026), senior advocate D.N. Goburdhan, appearing for the WFI, informed the Bench that Ms. Phogat had been permitted to participate in the selection trials pursuant to its earlier order. “She did not succeed, and she created havoc there,” he submitted.
However, the Bench told the WFI that no purpose would be served by pursuing the appeal since the selection trials had already been held. “Now it is over. You can either withdraw this, or we can dismiss it as infructuous”, it said.

However, Mr. Goburdhan submitted that the matter still warranted adjudication as the High Court had made adverse observations against the federation. He pointed out that the High Court had characterised as “mala fide” and “deplorable” the WFI’s decision to issue a show-cause notice to Ms. Phogat alleging indiscipline, violations of anti-doping regulations and breaches of United World Wrestling (UWW) rules.
He accordingly requested the Bench to expunge those observations, pointing out that Ms. Phogat’s challenge to the show-cause notice remains pending before a single judge of the High Court. “These observations will now bind the single judge,” he submitted.
The Bench then clarified that its decision to dispose of the appeal should not be construed as affirming the High Court’s remarks. “By this order, this court is not to be taken as having reiterated the observations of the High Court,” it observed.
Before the High Court, Ms. Phogat had challenged two circulars issued by the WFI prescribing the eligibility criteria for participation in the Asian Games selection trials. Departing from the criteria followed in previous years, the circulars made medal-winning performances in 2025 or 2026 a mandatory precondition even for participation in the trials. As a result, Ms. Phogat, who had been on a break since December 2024, which included a maternity break, was rendered ineligible.
She had also challenged a show-cause notice issued by the WFI on May 9 accusing her of indiscipline, violations of anti-doping regulations and breaches of United World Wrestling (UWW) rules. The notice further alleged that her failure to make weight at the 2024 Paris Olympics had resulted in “disqualification and national embarrassment”.
The High Court had observed that the WFI’s selection criteria left no room for the federation to consider accomplished wrestlers such as Ms. Phogat, who had taken a break from the sport owing to maternity leave. It had also pointed out that the criteria marked a departure from past practice.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya had also pulled up the Centre for failing to act against sports administrators and for “sitting silent” on the WFI’s “retrograde” eligibility norms, which excluded accomplished wrestlers from the selection trials.
The Supreme Court on May 29 had highlighted that such disputes must be resolved within the sporting domain by strong handholding among participants, sporting bodies and players. “Arguments would only become shriller in court halls. Ultimately, the courts would become vulnerable,” Justice Narasimha had said.


11 hours ago
1






















English (US) ·
French (CA) ·
French (FR) ·