Vinesh Phogat is one of India’s top wrestlers and her return to competitive wrestling after a long break naturally deserves attention. But the current impasse between the wrestler and the WFI is more than a case of one athlete; how do you apply sports rules to a star athlete when his/her circumstances are different from those of others?
The Delhi High Court has now refused to grant Phogat an interim exemption that would have allowed her to participate in the selection trials for the 2026 Senior World Wrestling Championships. The trials will take place on September 14 at Indira Gandhi Stadium in New Delhi.
The court’s reasoning was simple. The eligibility criteria set by the WFI apply to all athletes. Giving Phogat a special exemption before deciding if those rules are legitimate might be unfair to other wrestlers who may find themselves in similar circumstances.
That does not mean Phogat’s case is irrelevant. In fact, the court said her pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum recovery would all be relevant to the wider validity of the selection policy but acknowledging these circumstances and immediately establishing an individual exception are two different things.
The problem is bigger than Vinesh Phogat.
Phogat’s argument is understandable. She has been out of competitive wrestling since her pregnancy and childbirth and believes that she needs to try again to prove herself on the mat. Keeping her out of the selection process would be an enormous blow to her international career, her legal team has said.
But the WFI has suggested that she should return through the existing competitive pathway. Its current eligibility framework is based on performances in certain domestic competitions. Since Phogat was not competing during the relevant period, she does not satisfy those requirements.
This is where the larger problem begins.
A selection system cannot be merit-based if the rules change according to the name of the athlete in front of the federation. Phogat’s achievements are worthy of being acknowledged, but past performances can’t replace the current eligibility criteria.
Such a policy, however, is not to say that sport should have strict regulations that ignore pregnancy and maternity. That would be another kind of injustice, particularly for women athletes who had time away to have children.
The answer, then, is not “give Vinesh an exception” but “create a fair policy that explains what happens when any athlete faces the same situation.”
That is important.
Indian Sport needs better rules, Not More Exceptions
The Delhi High Court's order highlighted that concern. Phogat as an individual, could only compete provisionally, and other similarly placed athletes would be treated differently. It said granting such an exemption would cause other players to apply for the same treatment.
As a result, Indian sport needs to be more professional.
If maternity leave could disrupt an athlete’s eligibility, then there should be a clear maternity and return to competition policy in place. If injury can keep an athlete from qualifying for competitions, then there should be a transparent injury exemption process. If international commitments prevent participation in domestic events, there should be a clear plan for handling that situation.
None of this should be decided only when a famous athlete goes to court.
The rules should be written before the controversy happens, not rewritten because a high-profile athlete is affected.
And the same principle should be applied to federations themselves. Sporting bodies need to be held to transparent standards. Selection policies should be in place in advance, eligibility criteria should be clear, and athletes should know exactly what they need to do to qualify.
In Phogat's case, the court has not yet made a final decision on the validity of the WFI circular on September 7. The new order only granted her interim relief in order to be eligible for the forthcoming trials. Her more general challenge to the selection process is still pending and further proceedings are scheduled.
That is important.
This is not a judgment that Phogat does not deserve another chance. It is a judgment that the court cannot simply set aside an existing eligibility framework for one athlete before deciding that framework itself is lawful and appropriate.
Phogat deserves the opportunity to compete on merit. So does every other wrestler.
The real lesson of this controversy is not that Vinesh Phogat should be treated as everyone else even if she is in a very extraordinary position. Nor should it be the exception that Vinesh Phogat is a champion (she has a reputation).
The lesson is that Indian sport must have rules that are fair enough for the genuine circumstances and firm enough to apply equally to everyone.
If the rules are wrong, change them. If maternity needs special protection, put that protection into the system. If athletes need a pathway to return after long absences, create one.
But once the rules are set, they shouldn’t come down to how famous the athlete is.
The only way for Indian sport to move to a system where selection is based on transparent criteria, competitive performance, and merit rather than influence, reputation or the ability to secure an exception.
And ultimately, that would be better for Vinesh Phogat too.
