SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ERASE DELHI HC’S "VINDICTIVE" CHARACTERIZATION OF WFI IN VINESH PHOGAT SELECTION DISPUTE

NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India has officially closed the legal chapter regarding wrestler Vinesh Phogat’s inclusion in the 2026 Asian Games selection trials, declining an appeal by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) to expunge highly critical remarks made against it by the Delhi High Court.

A division bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar disposed of the WFI’s petition, ruling that the matter had become infructuous. The apex court noted that the primary objective of the litigation had already been realized following its interim order on May 29, which permitted Phogat to participate in the trials.

Background and High Court Strictures
The dispute originated from a May 22 ruling by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The High Court had interceded to allow Phogat to compete in the selection trials at New Delhi’s Indira Gandhi Stadium, strongly condemning the WFI’s selection protocols as "exclusionary."

Phogat had been sidelined by the federation for failing to compete in designated 2025 and 2026 qualifying events—an absence she maintained was due to maternity leave. In a landmark observation on gender equity in sports, the High Court ruled that motherhood cannot be utilized as a mechanism to marginalize or exclude female athletes from competitive selection.

Furthermore, the High Court directed severe criticism at a show-cause notice issued by the WFI to Phogat. The notice, which characterized Phogat's disqualification at the Paris Olympics as a "national shame," was labeled by the High Court as "deplorable," "vindictive," and clear evidence of mala fides (bad faith) on the part of the sports body.

Arguments Before the Apex Court
Seeking a deletion of these characterizations, Senior Advocate D.N. Goburdhun, appearing for the WFI, argued that leaving the High Court's scathing remarks on the record would severely prejudice the federation's standing. He expressed concern that the findings of mala fides would compromise the WFI’s position in a related, ongoing matter scheduled for a hearing before a single-judge bench of the High Court on July 6.

The WFI defended its regulatory actions, asserting that Phogat had failed to meet objective entry criteria. The federation further alleged that the wrestler had bypassed United World Wrestling (UWW) protocols by failing to serve a mandatory six-month notice period required to return to active competition following her brief, post-Olympic retirement.

Supreme Court’s Ruling
While the Supreme Court declined to actively expunge the High Court’s observations, it provided a significant legal safeguard for the federation. The bench explicitly clarified that its refusal to interfere with the order did not amount to an endorsement of the lower court's harsh language.

"This court will not be taken as having reiterated the findings and observations of the High Court. The issues are kept open," the Bench observed.
With Phogat having already competed in the trials—though ultimately failing to secure a spot on the final Asian Games squad—the apex court concluded that further adjudication on the language of the judgment was unnecessary, effectively balancing the legal record while keeping broader systemic issues open for future deliberation.

Discription: The Supreme Court of India has declined to expunge scathing remarks made by the Delhi High Court against the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) regarding wrestler Vinesh Phogat’s inclusion in the 2026 Asian Games trials. A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar dismissed the WFI's petition as infructuous, noting that Phogat had already participated in the trials under a previous interim order. The Delhi High Court had previously slammed the WFI’s policies as "exclusionary" and "vindictive," emphasizing that maternity leave cannot be used to disqualify female athletes. While the apex court refused to delete these remarks, it clarified that its dismissal does not imply endorsement, leaving the broader legal questions open for future determination.