Youth Olympics Equestrian Selection: Delhi High Court Upholds EFI's Selection, Directs Clearer Criteria & Timelines To Avoid Future Disputes
The Delhi High Court has directed the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) to ensure that its selection criteria and timelines for future international sporting events are framed and implemented with sufficient clarity and precision.A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that ambiguity in the selection process can create avoidable uncertainty...
The Delhi High Court has directed the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) to ensure that its selection criteria and timelines for future international sporting events are framed and implemented with sufficient clarity and precision.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that ambiguity in the selection process can create avoidable uncertainty for athletes representing the country.
“An athlete representing the country at an international sporting event requires not only physical ability, but also mental and emotional fortitude,” the Court said.
“It is therefore imperative that the selection process does not occasion avoidable uncertainty for participating athletes, as disputes arising from ambiguity may themselves impede their preparation for the event. EFI must accordingly ensure that the selection criteria and timelines are framed, communicated, and implemented with sufficient clarity to obviate disputes of this nature,” it added.
The Court made the observation while dismissing an appeal challenging the selection of an equestrian rider to represent India in Show Jumping at the 2026 Youth Olympic Games.
The petitioner, Shubh Chowdhari, had sought interference with Selection Decision-II, under which Shresht Raju Mantena was ranked first.
He had contended that EFI ought to have ranked the riders on the basis of their average penalty points rather than the number of qualifying performances.
Rejecting the contention, the Bench held that “consistency” could not be reduced to an arithmetic average derived from however few results a rider elected to submit.
“Consistency ordinarily denotes the repetition of a prescribed standard of performance across a body of results; it cannot be reduced to an arithmetical average derived from however few results a rider elects to submit. An average based on a limited sample may unduly favour a rider who competes less frequently,” the Court said.
It agreed that Selection Decision II must be tested on the basis of the reasons contemporaneously recorded and not upon reasons subsequently supplied.
Further, the Bench said that Chowdhari participated, through his father, in the proceedings before the reconstituted Selection Committee without raising any objection to its composition.
It added that having sought and participated in the reconsideration, he could not assail the composition of the Selection Committee merely because the outcome was adverse to him.
“For the reasons recorded hereinabove, none of these grounds is established. The methodology adopted in Selection Decision II bears a rational nexus to the notified Selection Criteria, was applied uniformly to all seven COC holders, and is supported by reasons recorded contemporaneously,” the Court said.
It noted that the Selection Criteria did not define the assessment period or the qualifying threshold with precision, and that the said lack of specificity has occasioned in repeated litigation between the parties.
That circumstance, however, the Court said, did not alter the conclusion that the selection was not vitiated by any infirmity warranting judicial interference.
The Bench reiterated that courts do not sit in appeal over the assessment of comparative sporting merit by expert selection committees and cannot substitute their own evaluation for that of the selectors.
“For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the challenge to the Impugned Judgment dated 17.09.2026. The learned Single Judge correctly held that Selection Decision II was neither mala fide, arbitrary, perverse, nor contrary to the notified criteria, and rightly declined to interfere therewith. Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed,” the Bench ruled.
It passed a similar order dismissing the appeal filed by another athlete, Vaasvi Khaitan, challenging a single judge ruling refusing to interfere with EFI's selection of Sresht Raju Mantena for the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) 2026.
In Khaitan's case, the division bench said that the observations made by the single judge emphasising the need for greater clarity, transparency, and consistency in future selection processes conducted by EFI were absolutely necessary.
Title: MASTER SHUBH CHOWDHARI THROUGH HIS FATHER v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matter