NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a stand from the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) on a petition filed by Olympian Vinesh Phogat challenging two show-cause notices issued against her and the consequential disciplinary proceedings.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the High Court was not issuing a formal notice at this stage and asked the WFI counsel to obtain instructions. The matter will next be taken up on September 29.
Phogat has challenged the show-cause notices dated May 9 and June 17, alleging that they form part of a continuing course of arbitrary, discriminatory and mala fide exercise of disciplinary powers by the federation, which has allegedly affected her return to competitive wrestling after maternity.
According to the petition, the International Testing Agency (ITA), through a communication dated July 3, 2025, confirmed that Phogat would be eligible to compete from January 1, 2026. She has claimed that despite complying with the requirements for her return to competition, WFI subsequently adopted an eligibility framework that effectively kept her out of the selection process.
Phogat has argued that the first show-cause notice is itself legally unsustainable. She claims that it relies upon the superseded UWW Anti-Doping Rules, 2015 and a “Rule 56” which, according to her, does not exist. She has also contended that the alleged whereabouts violation does not disclose the necessary ingredients of an Article 2.4 violation under the World Anti-Doping Code.
The first notice also concerns her participation in two weight categories during the March 2024 Selection Trials. Phogat has pointed out that her participation in both categories had been expressly permitted by the WFI’s Ad-Hoc Committee.
The issue had earlier reached the Delhi High Court in proceedings concerning the first show-cause notice. Phogat has stated that the Division Bench made significant prima facie observations regarding the nature of the notice and the manner in which WFI had proceeded against her. She was thereafter permitted to participate in the Asian Games Selection Trials.
The petition further alleges that during the pendency of the earlier proceedings, WFI altered its selection framework by recognising the Gonda tournament in Uttar Pradesh as an additional qualifying event. Phogat claims that this was despite the federation having defended before the Supreme Court a fixed pool of qualified wrestlers.
She has alleged that the change was not brought to the Supreme Court’s notice when the matter was heard on May 29. Phogat subsequently participated in the Selection Trials on May 30, during which she raised objections concerning the manner in which the selection process, including the draw, was conducted.
Soon thereafter, WFI issued the second show-cause notice dated June 17 in relation to her conduct during the Selection Trials.
Phogat has described the allegations in the second notice as vague and insufficiently particularised. In her detailed response dated June 30, she explained the circumstances surrounding the alleged incidents and cited similar incidents involving other wrestlers during the same trials. She has relied on these instances to allege that the disciplinary standards were being applied selectively against her.
The petition has also questioned the constitution of the WFI Disciplinary Committee. Phogat claims that despite repeated requests, the federation initially did not disclose the committee’s composition.
According to her, the purported composition of the committee was uploaded on WFI’s website only on July 30, after she had raised objections. She has further alleged that the composition was not contained in any formal order, resolution or other document bearing the federation’s date, signature or letterhead.
Phogat has therefore questioned the authority under which the committee was constituted and has alleged that no material was supplied to establish when or pursuant to what decision the committee came into existence.
The petition states that the cumulative effect of these circumstances has created a continuing impediment to her return to elite competition and could prejudice her eligibility, nomination and participation in forthcoming competitions.
She has accordingly sought quashing of the two show-cause notices and all consequential disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to them.
The High Court also heard a separate petition filed by Phogat seeking directions to WFI to formulate a fair, transparent and structured framework for women athletes returning to competitive sport after pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum recovery.
Phogat has cited her own experience to contend that women athletes returning after maternity should not be placed at a disadvantage because they were unable to participate in competitions during pregnancy and the post-partum recovery period.
According to the petition, after resuming her wrestling career following childbirth, she was required to re-enter the competitive pathway without any accommodation for the period during which she could not compete due to maternity.
She has alleged that the eligibility framework relied upon performances in tournaments held during her maternity period, thereby effectively penalising her for an absence that was beyond her control. On this petition, Justice Sharma issued notice to the WFI, the Union Government and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA). The matter has been listed for hearing in November
