Introduction:
In Manjeet v. Indian Olympic Association and Others, the Delhi High Court dealt with a significant challenge concerning the selection process for India’s contingent participating in the XXV Winter Olympic Games Milano Cortina 2026. The petitioner, Manjeet, a cross-country skier aspiring to represent India at the Winter Olympics, approached the Court alleging that his exclusion from the Olympic contingent by the Indian Olympic Association and its Ad-hoc Committee was arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the internationally recognised qualification framework established by the International Federation of Ski and Snowboard. The case raised crucial questions regarding transparency, accountability, and fairness in sports administration in India. The petitioner contended that despite fulfilling the qualification standards prescribed by the international governing body, he was excluded due to additional eligibility conditions imposed by domestic authorities which were not recognised under the international qualification system. The matter was heard by Justice Jasmeet Singh, who examined whether national sporting bodies could introduce criteria beyond internationally binding qualification standards and whether such exercise of discretion violates constitutional guarantees of fairness and equality. The Court recognised that participation in the Olympic Games is not merely a sporting opportunity but a matter of national representation and public trust. The case therefore became an important examination of the relationship between domestic sports governance, international regulatory frameworks, and constitutional principles governing fairness and transparency in public decision making.
Arguments Of The Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that his exclusion from the Olympic contingent was fundamentally arbitrary and violative of his rights under Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law and protection against arbitrary State action. He contended that he had successfully met the qualification criteria prescribed by the International Federation of Ski and Snowboard which governs eligibility for participation in cross-country skiing events at the Winter Olympics. According to the petitioner, once an athlete meets the qualification standards established by the international federation, national sporting bodies are bound to adhere to those standards and cannot introduce additional or inconsistent criteria for selection. The petitioner submitted that the Indian Olympic Association and its Ad-hoc Committee acted beyond their authority by imposing eligibility conditions that were not contemplated under the international qualification system. He argued that such actions created artificial barriers that unjustly deprived him of the opportunity to represent India at the global sporting event.
The petitioner further contended that the Olympic qualification process is governed by strict international standards designed to ensure fairness, uniformity, and transparency across participating countries. He submitted that permitting domestic authorities to alter or supplement these standards would undermine the integrity of the international sporting system and create uncertainty for athletes who rely upon clearly defined qualification benchmarks. The petitioner emphasised that he had invested years of training, financial resources, and personal sacrifice in pursuit of representing the country at the Olympics and that his exclusion based on arbitrary criteria inflicted irreparable harm to his professional career and personal aspirations.
The petitioner also argued that sports governance in India is subject to constitutional scrutiny because national sporting bodies perform public functions and exercise powers that significantly affect the rights and opportunities of athletes. He submitted that the Indian Olympic Association and its committees function as instrumentalities of the State and are therefore required to act fairly, transparently, and in accordance with established rules and regulations. The petitioner highlighted that the selection process lacked transparency and failed to provide clear reasons for his exclusion. He contended that such opaque decision making undermines athletes’ confidence in sports administration and discourages merit based participation.
Additionally, the petitioner argued that Olympic participation represents a once in a lifetime opportunity for most athletes and that arbitrary exclusion from such events has long lasting professional and reputational consequences. He urged the Court to intervene and direct authorities to ensure his participation in the Winter Olympics in accordance with the international qualification framework. The petitioner further sought judicial intervention to prevent recurrence of similar arbitrary practices in future sporting selections.
Arguments Of The Respondents:
The respondents including the Indian Olympic Association, its Ad-hoc Committee, and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports defended the selection process by contending that national sporting bodies possess administrative discretion to determine final team composition for international competitions. They argued that while international federations prescribe basic qualification standards, national Olympic committees are responsible for assessing broader considerations such as performance consistency, logistical feasibility, team composition, and strategic planning. The respondents submitted that the selection process was conducted in accordance with administrative policies and internal evaluation mechanisms designed to ensure competitive representation for the country.
The respondents contended that the Indian Olympic Association operates within a complex administrative framework that requires balancing various factors including resource allocation, training infrastructure, and overall team preparedness. They argued that the introduction of additional eligibility requirements was intended to maintain performance standards and ensure that athletes representing India are capable of competing effectively at the international level. The respondents maintained that such policy decisions fall within the administrative domain of sports governance and should not ordinarily be subject to judicial interference.
The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports submitted that it functions as a supervisory authority overseeing sports administration but does not directly participate in athlete selection processes conducted by autonomous sporting bodies. The Ministry argued that it had limited involvement in the specific selection decision challenged by the petitioner and therefore could not be held responsible for the alleged arbitrariness. The respondents further contended that judicial intervention in sporting selections may disrupt administrative autonomy and create precedents encouraging athletes to challenge selection decisions through litigation.
The respondents also emphasised that sports administration involves specialised expertise and technical evaluation that courts may not be equipped to undertake. They urged the Court to exercise restraint and allow sporting bodies to function independently in matters relating to athlete selection. The respondents therefore sought dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of administrative autonomy and absence of constitutional violation.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Jasmeet Singh delivered a strongly worded judgment criticising the selection process adopted by the Indian Olympic Association and its Ad-hoc Committee. The Court held that the respondents had acted beyond their authority by introducing eligibility conditions that were not prescribed under the International Federation of Ski and Snowboard qualification system. The Court observed that once an international qualification framework is established and accepted by national sporting authorities, deviation from such standards without lawful justification amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.
The Court emphasised that selection to represent the country at the Olympic Games is not merely an internal administrative function but a matter of national importance involving public trust and international reputation. The Court held that sporting authorities cannot assume the role of super selectors by creating additional criteria that undermine internationally recognised qualification standards. The Court observed that such actions convey institutional disregard for merit and excellence and risk promoting mediocrity in international sporting competition.
The Court further noted that transparency and fairness are essential components of sports governance and that athletes must have clarity regarding eligibility standards and selection procedures. The Court held that the selection process in the present case lacked transparency and fairness and therefore violated constitutional principles governing public administration. The Court observed that arbitrary selection practices not only harm individual athletes but also damage the credibility of national sporting institutions at the global level.
The Court expressed serious concern regarding the approach adopted by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. It observed that the Ministry as the nodal authority responsible for sports administration cannot remain indifferent to grievances raised by athletes. The Court held that the Ministry has a constitutional and administrative duty to ensure that sporting bodies function in a transparent, accountable, and merit based manner. The Court emphasised that athletes invest years of dedication and effort in pursuit of representing the country and therefore institutional authorities must safeguard their opportunities through fair and lawful decision making.
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to make all reasonable efforts to enable the petitioner’s participation in the Winter Olympics. The Court also directed the Indian Olympic Association and its Ad-hoc Committee to extend full cooperation in facilitating necessary arrangements for the petitioner’s inclusion in the Olympic contingent. The Court clarified that its decision was based on the principle that international qualification standards must be respected and that domestic authorities cannot override such standards through arbitrary administrative actions.
The Court however kept open the broader challenge regarding the constitution and functioning of the Ad-hoc Committee and directed the authorities to file detailed replies addressing these concerns. The matter was listed for further hearing to examine systemic issues relating to sports governance and administrative accountability. The judgment reinforces the principle that sporting excellence must be supported by transparent and rule based institutional mechanisms and that arbitrary exercise of administrative power cannot be permitted to undermine athletes’ rights or national sporting integrity.