NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has said it would examine and adjudicate upon the larger question of how motherhood and maternity are to be balanced against the demands of a sporting career.
The question arose during the hearing of a petition by wrestler Vinesh Phogat, who became a mother in July 2025 and has returned from maternity leave, seeking permission to participate in the women’s selection trials for the 2026 Senior World Championships.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in a late-night interim order on Thursday, refused to allow the grappler to participate in the selection trials scheduled to be held at the Indira Gandhi Stadium on September 14.
It said at this interim stage, the court is of the view that the eligibility criteria applicable to all athletes ought not to be relaxed in favour of Phogat alone, particularly when such relaxation may have consequences for other similarly situated athletes who are not before it.
“This court is also mindful that selection to represent the country at an international championship carries with it considerations extending beyond the individual claim of any particular athlete. The interest of the country in ensuring that its representatives are selected through a fair, uniform and performance-based process is of paramount importance,” Justice Sharma said.
The judge added, “this court is also conscious that the larger question as to how motherhood and maternity are to be balanced against the demands of a sporting career, and whether an athlete ought to require to choose between motherhood and pursuing her career, merits careful consideration. However, that issue is yet to be finally examined and adjudicated upon in the present proceedings”.
Till the validity and applicability of the selection policy itself is adjudicated upon, the eligibility criteria prescribed thereunder cannot simply be set aside or wished away in the case of one athlete, and a special class cannot be carved out in favour of the petitioner, particularly when other athletes similarly placed may also face a comparable dilemma and may be required to make similar choices in the course of their sporting careers, it said.
The court was of the view that granting such interim relief to Phogat alone, without first adjudicating upon the policy, may result in unequal treatment to similarly placed athletes.
It said that permitting Phogat to participate in the trials by granting her a special dispensation would not only be unfair to other athletes across the country but would also have the effect of opening a Pandora’s box with other athletes seeking similar exceptions from the prescribed eligibility criteria.
Phogat, in her application filed in a pending petition, also sought a stay on the operation of a September 7 circular issued by the WFI prescribing the eligibility criteria for the selection trials.
The fresh application was filed in the main petition in which the wrestler has sought formulation of a fair and structured framework for women athletes returning to competitive sports after pregnancy and maternity leave.
In the application, she has sought a stay on the circular as it excludes her from participating in the selection trials for the championship scheduled to be held at Astana, Kazakhstan from October 24 to November 1.
The court, in its order, said “To reiterate, the criteria prescribed under the circular dated September 7, 2026 apply uniformly to all athletes. An athlete who has not participated in the prescribed competitions, for whatever reason, would not fall within the eligibility categories specified by respondent no. 1 (WFI)”.
It said Phogat’s circumstances relating to pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum recovery would require consideration while examining the validity of the policy. However, that does not, at the interim stage, by itself entitle her to a direction permitting her to participate contrary to the eligibility criteria, it added.
The WFI circular provides for women’s trials in six Olympic weight categories. Phogat contended that the latest selection framework creates a closed pathway by making eligibility dependent on participation and performance in specified qualifying competitions.
The plea said the circular places Phogat in a position where she is excluded not because she has been assessed and found wanting on sporting merit but because she was unable to participate in the particular competitions selected by WFI as gateways to the present selection trials.
It said the framework contains no mechanism to account for an athlete who was unable to participate in the prescribed competitions for maternity-related reasons.
The court had earlier sought the response of WFI and the Centre on Phogat’s plea seeking formulation of a fair and structured framework for women athletes returning to competitive sports after pregnancy and maternity leave.
The wrestler has also filed another petition seeking quashing of two show cause notices issued to her by the WFI and disciplinary proceedings initiated against her.
The WFI’s counsel had said they kept the hearing twice but “there has been no show”. A final opportunity was given and the hearing was on September 2.
In the plea, Phogat said that the two notices issued to her on May 9 and June 17 were part of a continuing pattern of “arbitrary and mala fide action” by the WFI, obstructing her return to competitive wrestling after maternity.
