New Delhi: Delhi High Court Monday asked the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) to decide within two weeks the show-cause notice issued to grappler Vinesh Phogat over accusations of indiscipline and anti-doping rule violations.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma closed the proceedings on Phogat’s petition, which challenged the show-cause notice as well as the WFI’s selection policy and circular, after the federation’s counsel submitted that her grievance relating to participation in the Asian Games selections trials was now infructuous.
“Within two weeks, decide the show-cause notice dated May 9 under intimation to the petitioner and the court,” the judge ordered while disposing of the petition.
The WFI counsel said Phogat would be given a personal hearing before a decision is taken on the notice.
Even as Phogat’s senior counsel asserted that the petition raised “larger issues” with respect to the selection policy, the court said the athlete would have to file a fresh petition.
“This can be disposed of and then you can file a fresh writ petition,” the court said.
Also Read : WFI plea against Vinesh Phogat’s trial participation loses relevance: Supreme Court
The court was informed that pursuant to judicial orders, Phogat was permitted to participate in the Asian Games trials.
The petitioner’s senior counsel informed that she has received a fresh show-cause notice for her conduct at the trials.
On May 9, the WFI had issued the show-cause notice to Phogat and declared her ineligible to participate in domestic events till June 26, 2026, citing the mandatory six-month notice period linked to athletes returning from retirement under anti-doping rules.
In her petition, Phogat challenged the WFI’s selection policy and circular, which limited eligibility for participation in the Asian Games trials only to medal winners of certain tournaments.
Phogat asserted that the “qualification window” chosen by WFI substantially overlapped with her notified sabbatical on account of pregnancy and postpartum recovery, which created a “closed and inflexible gatekeeping mechanism” that was manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory.
