LAWYER SIBLING LOGO (1)
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • News
  • Updates
  • Constitution
    • Constitutional Laws
  • Laws
    • Civil Law
    • Criminal Law
    • Family Law
    • Real Estate Law
    • Business Law
    • Cyber & IT Law
    • Employee Law
    • Finance Law
    • International Law
  • Special Act
    • Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act)
    • Consumer Protection Act
    • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act (NDPS)
    • The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO)
  • Bare Act

Delhi High Court upholds Equestrian selection process for Youth Olympic Games

23/09/2026BlogNo Comments

The Delhi High Court has rejected a challenge by a 16-year-old international show-jumping athlete to her non-selection for the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) 2026, holding that there was no material to establish that an eight-month selection window had been prescribed by the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI).

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing a petition challenging, to a limited extent, the minutes dated August 24, 2026 and resolution dated August 27, 2026. The petitioner alleged that the decisions retrospectively changed the “rules of the game” after the selection process had commenced by replacing an alleged eight-month qualifying window from November 8, 2025 to July 25, 2026 with a two-month window from May 8, 2026 to July 25, 2026.

The petitioner, who sought selection to represent India at the YOG 2026 in Dakar, Senegal, contended that the change excluded seven of her eight qualifying scores and altered her position in the merit list.

The Fédération Équestre Internationale (FEI) had prescribed minimum eligibility requirements for participation in the Games, including obtaining a Certificate of Capability (COC).

The petitioner challenged Selection Decision-II dated August 27, under which the Ad-Hoc Committee of the EFI retained respondent No. 5 at Rank 1, placed the petitioner at Rank 3 and upgraded respondent No. 6 to Rank 2.

She argued that neither the selection criteria communicated on December 28, 2025, nor the identical criteria uploaded on May 8, 2026, prescribed May 8, 2026 as the commencement of the selection window. According to her, if scores obtained from November 8, 2025 onwards were considered, she would have had 10 qualifying scores, as against five for respondent No. 5 and four for respondent No. 6, placing her first in merit.

The EFI, however, disputed that any eight-month selection window had ever been prescribed. It submitted that November 8, 2025 merely corresponded to the date of the FEI Jumping World Challenge at Bengaluru. It further relied on the selection criteria uploaded on May 8, 2026 and Clause 3.2 of Article 15 of the EFI Statute, which required consideration of the “recency of results” up to July 25, 2026.

The Court noted that the selection criteria were uploaded on the EFI website for the first time on May 8, 2026 and that there was no material establishing that November 8, 2025 had ever been adopted as the commencement date of the selection window.

Justice Sharma also observed that the mere fact that the petitioner had obtained qualifying performances from November 8, 2025 could not, by itself, establish that the selection window began from that date. The Court further noted that none of the other participating athletes had challenged the commencement of the window.

The Court rejected the argument that forwarding competition results by the petitioner’s father to the EFI through emails amounted to an assurance that all such results would necessarily be considered for YOG selection.

It also noted that Selection Decision-I had already confined the consideration of recent results to the period from May 8, 2026 to July 25, 2026. Consequently, Selection Decision-II could not be said to have retrospectively altered an already established selection rule.

The Court further considered minutes dated May 13, 2026, which had been brought on record during the proceedings and which recorded that the Selection Committee had unanimously selected the petitioner at that stage.

While acknowledging that the minutes genuinely recorded the petitioner’s selection, the Court noted that only two riders had expressed interest at that point and the remaining eligible riders had not participated in that comparative exercise.

The Court further noted that a subsequent communication dated June 10, 2026, sent to all seven eligible COC holders, contemplated a fresh merit-based assessment with July 25, 2026 as the cut-off date. Thus, the position after June 10 was that all seven riders were to be considered afresh.

The Court also took note of the FEI Regulations for the Youth Olympic Games, 2026, which prescribed December 31, 2025 as the eligibility deadline for National Federations, May 20, 2026 as the deadline for submission of COCs and September 25, 2026 as the final entry deadline.

In view of the imminent final entry deadline, the Court held that remitting the matter for another fresh selection exercise would neither be possible nor appropriate.

At the same time, the Court made observations for the EFI to bring greater clarity and uniformity to future selection processes. It suggested that the Federation clearly specify the selection window and timelines applicable at each stage and make the selection criteria as specific and transparent as reasonably possible, particularly regarding how factors such as recent performance, consistency and level of competition would be assessed.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.

The post Delhi High Court upholds Equestrian selection process for Youth Olympic Games appeared first on India Legal.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • Maharashtra Magistrate issues contempt warning to Railway official over bedbug-infested VIP room
  • Supreme Court takes suo motu cognizance of Patna High Court ruling holding removal of salwar, pressing chest insufficient for attempt to rape
  • Delhi High Court dismisses CBI challenge to Chitra Ramkrishna’s bail in NSE phone tapping case
  • BCI member, raises electoral interference concerns to Supreme Court, seeks Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra’s recusal
  • Delhi High Court upholds Equestrian selection process for Youth Olympic Games

Recent Comments

  1. Phone Tracking In India - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA
  2. Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA
  3. The Evolution of Indian Penal Code 1860: Key Provisions and Relevance Today - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA

Follow us for more

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
Instagram
DisclaimerPrivacy PolicyTerms and Conditions
All Rights Reserved © 2023
  • Login
  • Sign Up
Forgot Password?
Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.