Court’s Role Not To Determine Selection Criteria: Delhi HC Dismisses Dressage Athlete Shruti Vora's Plea Challenging Non-Selection For Paris Olympics
|The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Shruti Vora, Dressage Athlete who challenged her non-selection for the upcoming Paris Olympics Games.
Shruti preferred a writ petition against Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) who selected the other athlete for the said purpose.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula said, “The Court’s role is not to determine the optimal criteria for selection but to ensure that the criteria applied does not violate basic principles of fairness or due process. While the Petitioner advocates for a model that prioritizes recent results, the selection system employed by Respondent No. 1 — considering a broader range of performances — is neither irrational nor arbitrary. It is a reasoned approach that aims to identify athletes who demonstrate sustained excellence, a critical factor for success in events such as the Olympic games.”
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sandeep Sethi represented the petitioner while Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta and Advocate Hrishikesh Baruah represented the respondents.
Factual Background -
The petitioner, a distinguished Indian Dressage athlete with a commendable record at international competitions including the Asian Games and Dressage World Championships, challenged the Selection Criteria of EFI for representing India in the Dressage event at the upcoming Paris Olympics. She contested the legality of such criteria under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, asserting that the same is arbitrary, discriminatory, and prejudicial. EFI had selected Anush Agarwalla, another Indian Dressage rider by which she was aggrieved.
Dressage is a highly skilled form of horse training and constitutes a competitive Equestrian sport. It involves the horse and rider performing a series of movements from memory, known as “tests”, which require precision, control and grace. EFI is the international authority responsible for publishing the regulations stipulating the criteria for participation in Equestrian sports at Olympics.
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides emphasised, “In the present case, the selection criteria established by Respondent No. 1 have been developed in alignment with international standards set forth by the FEI, which include a comprehensive evaluation of performances over a sustained period. It must also be noted that while recent performances are indeed significant, the ability to perform under various conditions — including different venues and pressures over the qualifying period — is equally critical. This broader perspective ensures that the selected athlete is versatile and capable of adapting to the diverse challenges presented by the Olympic environment. This approach not only tests an athlete’s peak performance but also their consistency and resilience, attributes that are invaluable in such high-stakes competitions.”
The Court observed that it must defer to the expertise and discretion of the sports governing bodies and that the impugned selection criteria does not reach the threshold of judicial intervention in terms of irrationality, arbitrariness, or perversity.
Before parting with the judgment, the Court recognized the dynamic nature of sports and the continuous evolution of competitive standards. It noted –
“Respondent No. 1, as an expert body, should remain open to reassessing and refining these criteria to adapt to any significant changes in the sport of Dressage or in response to feedback from athletes and other stakeholders. Such flexibility ensures that the selection process not only maintains its integrity and relevance but also aligns with best practices and emerging trends in sports governance. The ability to adapt and respond to the sporting community’s needs is essential for nurturing a healthy competitive environment.”
Moreover, the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s commendable dedication to the sport of Dressage. It took note of her exceptional focus and perseverance not only within her sporting discipline but also in balancing her responsibilities as a mother.
“The Court recognizes that achieving such high standards in this demanding sport, while managing significant personal commitments, is truly no small feat. Such dedication forms the backbone of sports excellence and deserves commendation. It is the hope of this Court that the Petitioner continues to pursue her passion for Dressage with the same vigour and excellence. Her sustained efforts will enrich not only her personal achievements but also contribute significantly to the sporting community. This case, regardless of its outcome, should not be seen as a setback but as a testament to her commitment and a stepping stone for future endeavours”, it added.
The Court also encouraged the petitioner to maintain her focus and dedication and concluded that her journey can serve as an inspiration for many, particularly to those who juggle multiple roles while chasing their dreams.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned selection criteria.
Cause Title- Shruti Vora v. Equestrian Federation of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4959)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sandeep Sethi, Advocates Rishi Agarwala, Maj. Nirvikar Singh, Avishkar Singhvi, Aditya Chatterjee, Parminder Singh, Harsh Mittal, Shreya Sethi, and Siddharth Seem.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, CGSC Arunima Dwivedi, Advocates Kirtiman Singh, Manmeet Kaur Sareen, Diva Saigal, Hrishikesh Baruah, Astha Sharma, Parth Goswami, Sanjeev Kaushik, Shreyas Awasthi, Akshay Kumar, Anurag Mishra, Rudraksh Kaushal, Vikash Singh, Sagar, Pinky Pawar, and Aakash Pathak.