The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to intervene in the selection of India’s dressage team for the upcoming Asian Games in Japan, dismissing appeals filed by gold medalists Anush Agarwalla and Sudipti Hajela.
A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia upheld a June 29 ruling by a single judge that rejected the riders’ challenges against the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI).
Although the bench noted that the EFI did not fully comply with certain clauses of its selection criteria, it concluded that ordering new trials at this stage is logistically impossible and could harm the national team’s prospects at the international tournament, which runs from September 19 to October 4.
Logistical Constraints Prevent New Trials
The court explained that the upcoming July 15, 2026, deadline makes holding another round of selection trials unfeasible.
The bench pointed out that the riders and their horses are currently scattered across different global locations. Moving the animals and athletes to a single venue for a new competition among all six probables cannot be accomplished within the remaining timeframe.
As a result, the court stated it was forced to show restraint to safeguard the broader interests of the sport and avoid disrupting India’s performance in the dressage event. However, the bench directed the EFI to strictly follow its selection guidelines in the future.
Origin Of The Selection Dispute
The legal dispute began after the EFI’s ad hoc committee released its dressage selection list on June 16. The list named four selected riders, placing Agarwalla as the first reserve and Hajela as the second reserve. Both riders had won gold medals at the 2022 Asian Games.
Agarwalla and Hajela filed petitions challenging their reserve status. They raised objections over how Minimum Eligibility Requirements (MERs) were calculated, how the selection criteria were interpreted, the lack of additional trials, and alleged bias within the selection committee.
Prior Judicial Decisions Upheld
The division bench’s ruling supports the June 29 decision of a single judge, who had dismissed the riders’ original petitions.
The single judge had determined that the selection process was conducted fairly, finding no signs of bias, procedural errors, or arbitrary decision-making that would justify court intervention.
While the division bench agreed there were no flaws in how the initial list of probables was compiled, it emphasized that the EFI must adhere strictly to its established selection criteria moving forward.
