The High Court of Delhi has dismissed the writ petitions by Anush Agarwalla and Sudipti Hajela against their non-selection in the Indian Dressage team for the Aichi-Nagoya 2026 Asian Games as it found no merit and ruled that the Equestrian Federation of India selection was not manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable or in variance with its selection criteria.
“This Court is of the considered opinion that the selection procedure followed by the EFI is in consonance with the Selection Criteria and the absence of subsequent competitive rounds does not invalidate the decision of the EFI,” she held in a judgement delivered on Monday afternoon and uploaded on the Court website in the evening.
“(The) Failure to conduct additional competitions in terms of Clause 15(b) of the Selection Criteria does not undermine or vitiate the decision reached by the Selection Committee and the Ad-hoc Executive Committee of EFI, which are the deciding authorities under the Selection Criteria,” she held.
Justice Mini Pushkarna, who heard the parties in a marathon sitting lasting more than eight hours on June 25, held that Sudipti Hajela’s contention that securing two Team Minimum Eligibility Requirements (MER) in the four competitions designated should be ranked above those securing one team MER and one individual MER.
“This Court does not find any infirmity in the reasoning put forth by respondent no. 1 that the cumulative scores across PSG, Intermediate I and Intermediate I Freestyle have to be taken to ensure complete competitive preparedness for maximising India’s prospect of winning all medals in Dressage at the Asian Games,” she wrote.
On Conflict of Interest
Justice Mini Pushkarna also held that Anush Agarwala could not be permitted to raise a conflict of interest charge against one of the selection committee members, Kapil Modi after the entire selection process has been completed merely because he was not selected in the squad.
“There is no document on record that would show that the petitioner wrote any letter/email or made any representation regarding the reconstitution of the selectin committee,” she held. “If he was aggrieved by the constitution of the selection committee and perceived that there would be bias against him, there was nothing to stop the petitioner from seeking remedies.”
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that Anush Agarwalla neither represented to the EFI nor sought any legal remedies in this regard. “Accordingly, the petitioner is precluded from raising such issue of bias before this Court on account of his own conduct which clearly points out to acquiescence and waiver of the said issue by the petitioner,” she wrote.
Points for future
Some points arise from the submissions made by the EFI during the proceedings in Court.
First, EFI told the Court that since all athletes selected on June 16 are stationed in different parts of Europe, it was not feasible to hold any further trials. It is mystifying that such a provision was penciled in in the selection criteria in the first place when it is well known that Equestrian athletes have to be based abroad to gain Asian Games berths.
It is quite well-known that athletes, across disciplines, prime themselves up to peak at the selection trials and plan their training and competition schedules accordingly. To be told that no camp or trials would be held and the order of merit prepared to shortlist athletes for the trials is the final selection may have come as a shock to the athletes.
Secondly, is it right to take scores of a rider-horse’s three tests (Prix St. George, Intermediate-1 and Intermediate Freestyle) from different competitions and arrive at a cumulative score? There are many competitions overseas where all three tests are not held, but should they be considered as qualifying competitions for Asian Games by EFI?
If in the Asian Games, the three tests are held over two days, how can the tests be spread over several weeks when it comes to selection competitions? It would appear that when it drew the Selection Criteria back in February 2026, EFI should have identified 6 or 8 competitions in which all three tests were scheduled and asked the riders to compete in any four of their choice.
It also sparks the thought that if EFI had made the calculations used in selection process available to the athletes, if not posted in public domain, athletes may not have needed to knock the doors of the Court in the first place. All the athlete-first principles should not be limited to mere slogans on paper but implemented in letter and spirit.
