The has formally dismissed a petition filed by five international para-cyclists seeking to challenge their exclusion from the official Indian contingent for the 5th Asian Para Games, held in Aichi-Nagoya. The ruling, delivered by Justice Amit Mahajan, reinforces the stance that in the selection of athletes for international sporting events is limited to instances where the decision-making process is proven to be arbitrary. The court emphasized that the finalization of a national contingent, having been carried out by domain experts, remains largely outside the scope of under .
The petitioners, who had been recommended by the national selection committee on , sought to override the ' , sanction order that restricted participation to a single para-cyclist, Arshad Shaik. Despite the petitioners’ arguments that they had fulfilled the eligibility conditions and were ranked among the top performers in Asian nations, the court found no to force an amendment to the final list. The government maintained that the athletes failed to meet specific, objective benchmarks prescribed under the Ministry’s circular dated .
Adherence to Objective Benchmarks
A significant portion of the dispute centered on the classification of para-cycling as a "measurable" sport, which requires athletes to meet rigorous, objective performance standards rather than relying solely on subjective rankings or general participation potential. Under the guidelines established in the September 2025 circular, specific qualification benchmarks were set to ensure that only athletes with a high probability of securing medals represent the country. Justice Mahajan noted that the authorities had carefully compared the performance data of the petitioners against these benchmarks in recent international championships, including the Asian Para Road Championships and the held throughout 2026.
The court observed that the Ministry’s decision-making process was objective, noting that the presence of vacant slots in the overall quota did not translate into a right for any individual to fill those positions. Addressing the petitioners' legal challenge, the court stated, “The existence of a quota/slot represents only the maximum no. of entries permitted and does not create an automatic right for participation.” By comparing the performances of the five petitioners—Pavan Kumar Kommoji, Sameer, Prashant Sudarshan Arkal, Vishvaben Babubhai Vasani, and Lisha Das—against the performances required to meet top-four or top-two standings in their respective event classes, the government demonstrated that the exclusion was based on current performance metrics rather than arbitrary selection.
Limitations of
During the proceedings, the petitioners had further requested the court to allow their participation at their own personal expense, arguing that their presence would not burden the public exchequer. However, the court found this request entirely unsupported by the governing policy. Clause 12 of the September 2025 circular explicitly mandates that only athletes whose participation is cleared at government expense can be part of the official Indian contingent. Justice Mahajan held that the court lacked the authority to dilute these standards, observing, “This Court cannot substitute its own assessment of the Petitioners medal prospects for the assessment reflected in the notified criteria.”
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s reluctance to interfere in the of sporting events once the contingent has been constituted. The court reasoned that changing the roster at such a late stage would be logistically unfeasible and would undermine the authority of the designated sports bodies and experts. “This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under , cannot issue a directing the authorities to alter the finalised contingent at this stage,” the court observed in its oral judgment.
Implications for Future Sporting Selections
The case highlights the rigid application of government-mandated selection criteria in measurable disciplines. By strictly adhering to the benchmarks provided in the 2025 circular, the court reaffirmed that the , along with the and the relevant , are the primary bodies tasked with determining national representation. The decision serves as a reminder to athletes and administrative bodies alike that selection to national teams is a privilege contingent upon meeting specific, measurable thresholds.
The court’s decision effectively closes the matter for the current Games, as the administrative exercise of finalizing the team had already been completed and acted upon. With the competition scheduled to begin within days of the ruling, the court found that any further interference would lead to undue complications in administrative clearances and team logistics. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, leaving the original sanction order—which cleared only Mr. Shaik for participation—standing as the final government decision. The case concludes with the court refusing to grant any relief to the petitioners, asserting that the, “decision to exclude/include athlete from participation in particular category is objectively taken, keeping in mind the feasibility of sending athletes, by the authorities and subject experts which cannot be interfered with.”
The outcome serves as a clear directive that in matters of elite competitive sport, the court will prioritize the integrity of the objective performance standards set by the government over individual appeals for discretionary entry. As the Indian contingent prepares for the Asian Para Games, the ruling stands as the final word on the qualification standards for this iteration of the event, ensuring that the selected athletes remain the focus of the nation’s efforts. With all pending applications also dismissed, the focus now turns entirely to the Games themselves, where only the officially sanctioned athletes will compete.
sports selection criteria - governmental sports policy
