Motherhood Cannot Be A Ground For Exclusion Of Athletes: Delhi HC

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in Vinesh Phogat v. Wrestling Federation of India & Ors. (LPA 399/2026), permitted wrestler Vinesh Phogat to participate in the Asian Games 2026 selection trials during the pendency of her writ petition challenging the Wrestling Federation of India’s selection policy. The Court remarked that motherhood cannot become a disability and that a legal and regulatory framework that expressly or impliedly disadvantages a woman on account of pregnancy or post-partum recovery would, prima facie, raise concerns of discrimination and arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by Vinesh Phogat—Vinesh Phogat v. Wrestling Federation of India [ W.P. (C) 6766/2026]—challenging the Wrestling Federation of India’s Asian Games Selection Policy dated February 25, 2026 and Selection Criteria Circular dated May 6, 2026 on the ground that they operated to exclude her from participation in the Asian Games 2026 selection trials. She also sought quashing of a show-cause notice dated May 9, 2026 issued by the Federation, which sought an explanation regarding the Paris Olympics weigh-in controversy and was relied upon by the Federation to treat her as ineligible to participate in WFI competitions and events until June 26, 2026.

By order dated May 18, 2026, the learned Single Judge issued notice in the writ petition and stay application, granted liberty to the appellant to reply to the show-cause notice, and directed the Federation to carry the proceedings to their logical conclusion. However, no interim protection was granted. Aggrieved thereby, Vinesh Phogat filed the present appeal, contending that the writ petition would become infructuous if she were not permitted to participate in the selection trials scheduled for May 30 and 31, 2026.

The Court noted that the appellant had informed the International Testing Agency (ITA) that she would remain on sabbatical until August 2025 on account of pregnancy. After giving birth to her first child, she resumed training, informed the Sports Authority of India and United World Wrestling and informed the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) Program of her return to competition. The ITA informed her that she would be eligible to compete from January 1, 2026.

The appellant contended that the Policy and Circular created a “rigid and mechanically exclusionary eligibility framework” restricting eligibility to medal winners of specified domestic events. She submitted that, owing to her maternity-related absence, childbirth and post-partum recovery, none of the prescribed qualification routes were realistically available to her. She clarified that she was not seeking automatic qualification but merely an opportunity to participate in the selection trials and compete on merit.

The appellant further challenged the legality of the show-cause notice and relied upon the award of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which recorded that there was “no suggestion of any wrongdoing on her part” in relation to the Paris Olympics weigh-in incident. She also relied upon previous selection practices and guidelines permitting consideration of iconic athletes through discretionary mechanisms.

The Wrestling Federation of India opposed the appeal, contending that the appellant had voluntarily retired from wrestling and had not participated in the qualifying competitions prescribed under the policy. It further argued that the policy was uniformly applicable to all athletes and that no exemption could be granted.

The Division Bench observed that motherhood cannot be treated as a professional impediment or a circumstance warranting adverse treatment. It noted that the appellant’s exclusion from the selection trials was directly attributable to her maternity-related sabbatical and recovery period, which coincided with the championships required to satisfy the eligibility criteria under the policy and circular.

The Court held, prima facie, that the appellant had made out a case challenging the policy and circular as arbitrary and discriminatory. It observed that the selection framework represented a significant departure from past practice and was “clearly exclusionary in nature” because it provided no discretion to consider iconic players who had taken maternity-related sabbaticals. The Court also termed the remarks in the show-cause notice describing the Paris Olympics incident as a “national embarrassment” as “deplorable” and prima facie misconceived.

Holding that the writ petition should not be rendered infructuous pending adjudication, the Court directed that Vinesh Phogat be permitted to participate in the Asian Games 2026 selection trials. It further directed that the trials be video-recorded and that independent observers from the Sports Authority of India and the Indian Olympic Association be appointed to oversee the process and submit a report before the Single Judge.