The Delhi High Court has allowed wrestler Vinesh Phogat to participate in the selection trials for the 2026 Asian Games, scheduled to be held on May 30 and 31, while criticising the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) for acting in a “vindictive” manner against her.

A Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed that the trials be video-recorded and ordered the nomination of two independent observers from the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) to oversee the process.

The Bench, in its order passed on May 22 and uploaded online on May 23, observed that motherhood is “celebrated” in India and across the world, adding that any legal or regulatory framework that disadvantages a woman on account of pregnancy or post-partum recovery would violate the constitutional guarantee of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 21.

Ms. Phogat had challenged a WFI circular prescribing eligibility criteria for participation in the Asian Games selection trials. Under the revised policy, only wrestlers who secured medals in competitions held in 2025 or 2026 are eligible to participate.

The wrestler contended that the criteria effectively excluded her, as she had been away from competition since December 2024, including during her maternity period after giving birth in July 2025.

She also challenged a showcause notice issued by the WFI on May 9, which referred to her disqualification from the women’s 50 kg final at the 2024 Paris Olympics as a “national embarrassment”.

The Bench noted that Ms. Phogat’s exclusion from the trials was directly linked to the sabbatical and temporary retirement she took during maternity and recovery, which prevented her from participating in qualifying championships under the existing policy and circular.

The Court also deprecated the WFI’s description of Ms. Phogat’s disqualification at the 2024 Paris Olympics as a “national embarrassment” in its show-cause notice, despite the Court of Arbitration for Sport having found no wrongdoing on her part. The court said the remarks appeared “premeditated”, “misconceived” and reflective of a mala fide and vindictive intent against the wrestler.

The Bench further held that the existing policy and circular were “exclusionary in nature” as they failed to provide any discretion for considering iconic athletes who had taken a sabbatical due to maternity.