On Friday, the Delhi High Court reinstated the mandate of the ad-hoc committee, which was appointed by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) on December 27 last year, to oversee and manage all activities of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI).

The ad-hoc committee, which had been dissolved by the IOA on March 18 following the lifting of the ban on the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) by United World Wrestling in February, was reinstated by the Delhi High Court. Justice Sachin Datta ruled that the dissolution of the ad-hoc committee was unjustified.

The court further stated that the IOA is free to reconstitute the ad-hoc committee, ensuring it becomes a multi-member body composed of eminent sportspersons or experts who are knowledgeable in handling International Federations. This move is intended to address any concerns the United World Wrestling (UWW) may have regarding the actions taken in relation to the WFI.

“Dissolution of the ad-hoc committee is thus incongruous and incompatible with continuation of the order dated 24.12.2023 whereby the newly elected Executive Committee of the WFI has been instructed to abstain from administering and managing the day-to-day activities of the Federation with immediate effect,” the court held.

The court issued the order in response to a petition filed by wrestlers Bajrang Punia, Vinesh Phogat, Sakshi Malik, and Satyawrat Kadiyan. They sought a directive preventing the Union Government from lifting the suspension of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI).

The wrestlers had filed the application in connection with an earlier plea challenging a February 26 circular issued by the WFI, which called for selection trials for the Senior Asian Wrestling Championships 2024 and the Asian Olympic Games Qualifier Wrestling Tournament. In their application, they requested the immediate appointment of a retired judge from the Supreme Court or High Court to manage and administer the WFI. They also sought directions for the WFI to hand over peaceful possession and access to all resources and databases to the court-appointed committee led by the retired judge.

However, in the interim order passed today, Justice Datta declined the wrestlers' request to appoint a retired judge as the administrator of the WFI.

“It is deemed apposite to have a multi-member ad-hoc committee (as mentioned aforesaid) to manage and control the affairs of the respondent no.2,” the court said.

The court also clarified that the directions are provisional and subject to further orders that may be issued in the ongoing writ petition. Today's interim order should not be interpreted as a final judgment on the merits of the parties' arguments. Notice in the petition was issued on March 4, with the plea requesting that the WFI be directed to cease conducting the national trials as outlined in its February 26 circular.

The wrestlers also sought a direction requiring the Union Government and the WFI's Ad-Hoc Committee to ensure that the wrestling federation complies with the National Sports Development Code, 2011. Additionally, they requested that national selection trials for all international events be conducted under the supervision and monitoring of the court. According to the wrestlers, the Central Government had issued a circular on January 7, which prohibited the WFI from conducting any activities, with any championships or competitions organized by the WFI deemed unsanctioned and unrecognized.

The plea further stated that, according to the January 7 circular, only National Wrestling Championships for various age categories, when conducted under the supervision of the IOA-appointed WFI Ad-Hoc Committee, would be considered sanctioned and recognized in compliance with the Sports Code.

The plea argued that under no circumstances could the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) be considered a "legal, fair, and unbiased body" capable of conducting free and fair national trials for international sports events, including the Asian Championships and World Championships.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Adv. alongwith Mr. Siddharth Nayak, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain and Mr. Raghav Khanna, Advs

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC and Mr. Devvrat Yadav, Ms. Diva Saigal, Advs. for R-1/UOI; Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Hemant Phalpher, Mr. Sukrit Seth and Mr. Auritro Mukherjee, Advs. for R-2/WFI; Mr. Sagar Chaurasia and Mr. Vikas Singh, Advs. for R-3/IOA

Case Title: BAJRANGPUNIA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.