The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected wrestler Vinesh Phogat's application for an interim exemption to compete in the women's selection trials for the 2026 Senior World Championships. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma delivered the late-night interim order, ruling that the eligibility criteria established by the Wrestling Federation of India apply uniformly to all athletes across the board.
Phogat had approached the court seeking a stay on the WFI's September 7 circular, which outlines strict eligibility pathways for the trials scheduled for September 14 at the Indira Gandhi Stadium in New Delhi. The championship itself is slated to take place in Astana, Kazakhstan, from October 24 to November 1, covering six Olympic weight categories.
Judicial Reasoning on Uniformity
In refusing the interim injunction, Justice Sharma emphasized that granting an exclusive exemption to a single petitioner could compromise fairness for other athletes who find themselves in similar circumstances but are not party to the current litigation. The court noted that altering entry rules mid-stream without a final determination on the broader policy could create systemic inequality within the national selection framework.
The bench acknowledged that Phogat's personal circumstances involving pregnancy, childbirth, and subsequent postpartum recovery warrant deep examination when reviewing the overall validity of the WFI selection guidelines. However, the court maintained that such considerations do not automatically justify granting interim relief that directly contradicts the active qualifying criteria established by the sports governing body.
The Maternity Policy Challenge
The immediate courtroom battle stems from a larger petition filed by Phogat, who became a mother in July 2025 and has since resumed competitive training. Her legal challenge asks the High Court to mandate a structured, transparent framework specifically designed to accommodate female athletes returning from maternity leave.
Phogat contended through her legal counsel that the WFI's selection model creates a closed pathway by tying eligibility strictly to performance in specific prior competitions. Because her pregnancy and postpartum recovery coincided with those designated gateway events, she argued that her current exclusion stems from administrative inflexibility rather than an evaluation of her actual athletic merit.
Prior Competition and Legal Backstory
To demonstrate her competitive readiness following childbirth, Phogat had previously entered the Asian Games selection trials held on May 30, where she competed in the 53kg category, winning her quarter-final match before exiting in the semi-final against Meenakshi Goyat. Despite that appearance, the WFI's latest circular requires adherence to a separate set of benchmarks that she failed to satisfy due to her maternity-related absence.
The ongoing legal friction between the prominent wrestler and the national federation extends beyond selection criteria. Phogat has also filed a separate petition seeking to quash two show cause notices issued to her by the WFI on May 9 and June 17, which she characterizes as part of an arbitrary pattern designed to impede her athletic comeback.
Response from Wrestling Federation
Legal representatives for the WFI countered that the federation provided adequate procedural opportunities for hearings regarding the disciplinary notices, noting that notice hearings were scheduled twice without appearance before a final opportunity was extended for September 2.
The high court has previously directed both the WFI and the central government to file formal responses to Phogat's main petition concerning maternity provisions. Those institutional replies form part of the broader judicial inquiry into how national sports bodies handle career interruptions for female competitors.
Next Steps in Judicial Proceedings
With the interim relief application formally dismissed, the selection trials scheduled for September 14 will proceed under the unmodified WFI eligibility circular. The primary petition challenging the legality of the selection framework and the disciplinary notices remains pending before the Delhi High Court for substantive adjudication.
