Court upholds authorities' decision to exclude women's +87 kg Kurash category, says expert-driven medal assessment cannot be overridden through writ jurisdiction
New Delhi, September 21, 2026 — The Delhi High Court on Sunday dismissed a writ petition filed by Kurash athlete Muskan Rathi challenging the decision of Indian sports authorities to exclude the women's +87 kg weight category from selection trials for the 20th Asian Games, 2026. Justice Amit Mahajan held that the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of subject matter experts who had objectively assessed medal-winning prospects before deciding which categories to send athletes in.
Muskan Rathi, a Kurash player in the women's +87 kg weight division, had approached the Court seeking multiple reliefs, including quashing the decision of the Tenpin and Indian Kurash Association (TIKA) — Respondent No. 4 — to conduct selection trials only in the women's -57 kg and -78 kg categories while altogether skipping the +87 kg category. She also sought to challenge Clause 6 of a governance circular issued by the Department of Sports (DOS) dated September 24, 2025, arguing that the eligibility criteria prescribed therein were inconsistent with the circular's own stated objective of maximizing India's medal prospects and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
The petitioner contended that excluding her weight category from the selection process was arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasonable. She further pointed out that certain athletes selected in the -57 kg category had not even participated in prior competitions, yet their names were forwarded for the Asian Games.
The Union of India and other respondents filed a counter affidavit explaining the rationale behind the decision. They stated that India had previously secured medals at the international level in the -78 kg and -57 kg Kurash categories, but no Indian athlete had won any international medal in the +87 kg category in the last two years. The decision to exclude the +87 kg category was taken after an objective evaluation of comparative medal-winning probability across all weight divisions, in consonance with the Government's overarching policy of maximizing India's medal tally at international multi-sport events.
Justice Mahajan, after hearing both sides with their consent on the same day as the early hearing application was moved, ruled decisively against the petitioner on multiple grounds.
First, the Court held that decisions regarding athlete selection and category inclusion for international sporting events are matters of expert assessment and policy. The authorities and subject experts had objectively evaluated the medal-winning potential of each category and concluded that the +87 kg division did not present a realistic medal prospect. The High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to take a different view on what is essentially a specialized, performance-based evaluation.
Second, Justice Mahajan rejected the petitioner's argument regarding athletes in the -57 kg category who allegedly had not participated in competitions but were still selected. The Court noted that this contention did not advance Rathi's case since she was seeking inclusion in an entirely different weight category — the +87 kg division — and issues pertaining to another category's selection process were not relevant to her claim.
Third, and significantly, the Court noted that the Asian Games had already commenced on September 19, 2026 — two days before the hearing. Given that the Games were underway, no practical relief could be granted to the petitioner at that stage, further undermining the viability of the petition.
Finding no ground to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction, Justice Mahajan dismissed the petition.
The judgment reinforces the well-established principle of judicial restraint in matters involving expert and policy-driven decisions, particularly in the domain of sports governance and athlete selection for international competitions. Courts have consistently maintained that unless a decision is shown to be patently arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of fundamental rights on clear grounds, the judiciary will not step into the shoes of specialized bodies entrusted with technical and strategic assessments.
Legal experts observing the case noted that the ruling sends a clear message that while athletes are entitled to fair and transparent selection processes, the ultimate call on which categories to prioritize based on medal-winning potential remains within the domain of sports federations and government bodies, provided such decisions are backed by objective criteria.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Pathak Rakesh Kaushik, while the Union of India was represented by Standing Panel Counsel Udit Dedhiya along with Kartik Sharma, Mankan Chawla, Preyansh Gupta, and Arihant Shrivardhan. Respondent No. 3 was represented by Advocate Ranjeet Pawar.
Bottom Line :
Selection of athletes for Asian Games - Court will not interfere under Article 226 with expert and policy-based decision excluding a weight category where authorities objectively assessed medal-winning prospects and found no recent international medal potential in that category - Relief also declined as Games had already commenced.
Statutory Provision(s): Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 6 of Circular No. 70-9/2025-Governance-I dated 24.09.2025 issued by the Department of Sports (DOS)
Muskan Rathi v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2983431
