The athlete’s grievance was that her weight category had been left out of the Games altogether: selection trials were held for two Kurash categories but not hers, and no one was sent in the +87 kg class. The authorities explained why, India had won medals in the two categories chosen but none in hers in the last two years, and the policy was to maximise medal prospects. The Delhi High Court held that this was an expert, objective call that a writ court cannot second-guess, and that, with the Games already under way, no relief could be granted in any case. The petition was dismissed.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition by a Kurash athlete challenging her exclusion from the selection process for the 20th Asian Games, 2026, holding that a court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot direct the authorities to take a different view where the decision not to send athletes in a particular category has been taken objectively by the authorities and subject experts [Muskan Rathi v. Union of India and Others].
Justice Amit Mahajan, finally hearing the matter with the consent of the parties, held that no ground was made out to exercise the writ jurisdiction.
The challenge
The petitioner challenged the conduct of selection trials for the Games in the women’s -57 kg and -78 kg Kurash categories without holding trials in the women’s +87 kg category, and sought to have her category included in the selection process. She also challenged a clause of a September 2025 selection circular to the extent it prescribed eligibility criteria said to be inconsistent with the circular’s stated objective of maximising India’s medal prospects, contending that the exclusion of the +87 kg category was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, and sought directions for fair, transparent, performance-based trials and the publication of selection records.
In their counter affidavit, the respondents stated that India had, on earlier occasions, secured medals in the -78 kg and -57 kg categories, whereas no international medal had been secured in the +87 kg category in the last two years. After objectively evaluating the comparative medal-winning probability of all categories, which, as per the affidavit, was the object of the government policy, the decision had been taken not to send any athlete in the petitioner’s category.
The limits of judicial review
The Court held that the decision fell outside the scope of what a writ court may interfere with. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, it held, it cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the authorities to take a different view; the decision to exclude an athlete from participation in a particular category had been taken objectively by the authorities and subject experts, and such a decision cannot be interfered with. The comparative assessment of which categories offer the best medal prospects, in other words, is a matter of expertise and policy entrusted to the sporting authorities, not one a court is equipped, or entitled, to substitute its own view upon.
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s reliance on an alleged inconsistency in the selection of another category. Her contention that candidates selected in the -57 kg category had not participated and yet had their names sent did not, the Court held, advance her case, since she was seeking inclusion in a different category altogether; an alleged irregularity in one category could not found a claim to be selected in another.
The Games had already begun
There was, in addition, an insuperable practical obstacle. The Games, the Court noted, had already started on September 19, 2026, so that no relief could be granted to the petitioner at that juncture. On both counts, the non-interferability of an expert selection decision and the futility of any relief once the Games were under way, the Court held that no ground was made out to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226, and dismissed the petition.
Why it matters
The decision restates a settled boundary of judicial review in the arena of sports selection. Courts have repeatedly held that the choice of who, or which category or event, represents the country is a matter of expert judgment and policy, and that a writ court will not sit in appeal over such a decision merely because an aggrieved athlete would have chosen differently. Interference is confined to cases of demonstrated arbitrariness, malafides or a breach of the applicable rules; an objective, reasoned selection call, made by the competent authorities on relevant sporting considerations, is not open to substitution by the court’s own assessment of comparative merit.
Here, the authorities had put forward a rational basis for the exclusion, the absence of international medals in the +87 kg category over the preceding two years, measured against the policy objective of maximising medal prospects. Once such a basis is shown, the Article 14 challenge loses its footing: a classification between categories, keyed to their demonstrated medal-winning record, is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in the constitutional sense, but a legitimate exercise of selection discretion. The petitioner’s grievance about an unrelated category could not convert that into an illegality affecting her own.
The timing was, ultimately, decisive in its own right. A challenge to a selection decision brought so close to, or after, the commencement of the event it concerns runs into the difficulty that the court cannot turn back the clock; once the Games are on, a direction to re-run trials or include a category is incapable of implementation. The case is a reminder to aggrieved athletes that a selection dispute must be raised, and pressed, well in time, since the practical window for effective relief closes when the competition begins, whatever the merits of the underlying grievance.
Case Title: Muskan Rathi v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C) 8610/2026]
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Date of Order: September 21, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Pathak Rakesh Kaushik for the petitioner; Senior Panel Counsel Udit Dedhiya, with others, for the Union; Advocate Ranjeet Pawar for Respondent No. 3.
Status: Petition dismissed. Selection decision held to be an objective, expert call not open to interference under Article 226; no relief possible as the Games had already begun.