Back
to Hear Wrestlers' Appeal Challenging Brij Bhushan Acquittal in Harassment Case
Four women wrestlers have moved the in Delhi challenging the acquittal of former chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a high-profile sexual harassment case. The appeal, which also challenges the acquittal of former WFI assistant secretary Vinod Tomar, is scheduled to be heard on Saturday, , before Special Judge (MP-MLA Cases) Dig Vinay Singh.
The wrestlers argue that the
judgment by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ashwini Panwar is legally unsustainable and rests on a
"
."
In their plea, they contend that the trial court applied what they describe as "
" about the expected behavior of victims of sexual assault and harassment, rather than conducting a fair, evidence-based assessment.
Background: Three Years of Legal Battle
The case dates back to allegations made by several women wrestlers, including Olympians Vinesh Phogat and Sakshi Malik, against Brij Bhushan, who was then president of the WFI and a BJP MP from Uttar Pradesh. The alleged incidents of sexual harassment occurred between and at locations including the WFI office, Singh’s official residence, and during overseas trips. In , the wrestlers staged a high-profile protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, demanding justice and drawing international attention.
The filed a chargesheet in under . In , the court framed charges against Singh based on complaints from five wrestlers, while he was discharged in one case. Tomar was charged with in connection with one complainant. The trial, which lasted over three years and included 127 hearings, concluded on , 2026, when the magistrate acquitted both accused.
Key Arguments in the Appeal
The wrestlers’ appeal, filed through
, raises several grounds for challenging the acquittal. Central to their argument is that the trial court improperly relied on the "
" standard, questioning the women’s conduct and responses based on stereotypical expectations of how a victim should behave. The plea states:
"The impugned order proceeds on
, fails to apply
, and, in material part, rests its reasoning on '
' about the 'expected' behaviour of victims of sexual assault and harassment, rather than on a fair, evidence-based assessment after taking into account the circumstances of the victims."
The appeal also contends that the trial court fixated on minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the victims’ testimonies, such as the wrong country or year mentioned for an alleged incident, and used these to reject the entire prosecution case. The wrestlers argue that such an approach ignores the and the context in which victims of sexual harassment often hesitate to come forward due to fear of retaliation.
Trial Court’s Reasoning
In its 239-page judgment, the magistrate’s court highlighted several factors that created
. It noted the victims’ prolonged silence, their continued cordial relations with Singh—including inviting him to family functions and wedding ceremonies—and contradictions in their testimonies. The court observed:
"It was understandable that Singh, being the then WFI President, would have spoiled the careers of the women wrestlers if they had made a complaint against him; however, it was not at all understandable as to why cordial relations were maintained by them with him for years."
The judgment also pointed out that two of the five complainants stated they were "forced/pressured" to level allegations, and the court concluded that the allegations were politically motivated,
"false and fabricated, made collectively"
in deep conspiracy. The magistrate emphasized that nothing in the evidence proved that these two victims did not support the prosecution’s case due to any overt act attributable to the accused.
Legal Analysis: The ‘’ Fallacy
Legal experts following the case note that the appeal raises a critical issue in sexual harassment jurisprudence—the tendency of courts to apply an "" standard. This standard assumes that a genuine victim will immediately report the offense, sever all ties with the accused, and provide a consistent, flawless account. However, established legal principles, including those under the and precedents from the , recognize that victims of sexual offenses often behave in ways that may seem counterintuitive, such as maintaining silence due to shame, fear, or power imbalances.
The appeal argues that the trial court’s reasoning runs counter to these settled principles. For instance, the has repeatedly held that minor discrepancies in testimony should not be given undue weight if the core narrative is credible and corroborated. The wrestlers’ counsel is expected to rely on these precedents to argue that the acquittal is and warrants reversal.
Implications for the Legal Community
The outcome of this appeal could have far-reaching implications for how Indian courts handle sexual harassment cases involving power dynamics. If the sessions court sets aside the acquittal, it may reinforce the need for a to evaluating victim testimony. Conversely, if the appeal is dismissed, it could embolden defendants to argue that victims’ conduct inconsistent with stereotypes negates their credibility.
The case also highlights the tension between the principle of "" and the practical difficulties of proving sexual offenses that often occur in private without witnesses. The appeal is likely to test the limits of in acquittal matters, particularly under , which allows victims to appeal against acquittals.
Looking Ahead
The hearing on before Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh is expected to draw significant attention from the legal community and the public. will represent the wrestlers, while will appear for Brij Bhushan Singh. The court may either admit the appeal for detailed hearing or dismiss it summarily. Given the gravity of the allegations and the public interest, the sessions court is likely to scrutinize the magistrate’s reasoning carefully.
As the legal battle continues, the wrestlers remain determined to seek justice. Their appeal serves as a reminder that the fight against sexual harassment in sports—and beyond—is far from over.
