Delhi High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Nomination For Asian Games, Holds Selection Trials Cannot Override Statutory Benchmarks

"The review petitioner seeks a fresh adjudication of her own competing claim by inviting this Court to compare the merits of the two athletes. Such an exercise neither arose for consideration in the writ petition nor can it be undertaken in review jurisdiction." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 11, 2026, dismissed a review petition seeking to overturn the nomination of taekwondo athlete Kashish Malik for the 20th Asian Games 2026, holding that judicial review cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise to re-adjudicate competing sporting claims.

A bench of Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the scope of review jurisdiction is exceptionally limited and cannot be invoked merely because a rival athlete seeks a re-appreciation of comparative merits or world rankings.

The review petitioner, Aranya Thakur, had approached the court seeking a recall of its July 1, 2026 judgment that favored Kashish Malik for the Women's Under-57 kg Taekwondo slot at the Asian Games. Thakur argued that she was a necessary party whose competing claim, backed by a Gold Medal in the Open Selection Trials and a superior world ranking, was overlooked without an effective hearing. Opposing the plea, Malik contended that she alone met the mandatory eligibility benchmarks under the Ministry's Selection Criteria by securing a Bronze Medal at the Senior Asian Taekwondo Championship.

The primary question before the court was whether a judgment upholding an athlete's statutory nomination based on qualifying championship benchmarks suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. The court was also called upon to determine whether review jurisdiction permits a comparative evaluation of rival athletes' sporting credentials and open trial victories.

Court Reaffirms Narrow Scope Of Review

The high court emphasized at the outset that the power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC is not intended to enable the court to rehear the matter or sit in appeal over its own judgment. The bench noted that review jurisdiction is exceptional in nature and restricted strictly to correcting manifest errors apparent on the face of the record or considering newly discovered evidence.

"A review petition cannot be used as a means to re-argue the case or to persuade the Court to take a different view on issues that have already been considered and decided."

No Error Apparent On Record Found

Referring to the Supreme Court precedents in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) and Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025), the court reiterated that review proceedings cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise. The bench observed that an error apparent must be self-evident and not require elaborate arguments or re-appreciation of facts.

"If the alleged error can be demonstrated only after a detailed examination of the issues, it falls outside the scope of review."

Writ Petition Did Not Involve Comparative Merit Assessment

Addressing the core contention, the court clarified that the original writ petition filed by Kashish Malik did not require the judiciary to undertake a comparative assessment of sporting merits between rival athletes. The sole controversy was examining the legality of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports' order rejecting Malik's candidature despite her fulfilling the eligibility criteria under Clause 4(ii)(a) of the Ministry's Selection Criteria dated September 24, 2025.

National Sports Federation Recommendation Held Weight

The court noted that India Taekwondo, the National Sports Federation, had duly recommended Kashish Malik's name because she secured a Bronze Medal at the qualifying 27th Senior Asian Taekwondo Championship in Mongolia. Clause 4(ii)(a) mandates a sixth or better finish in the continental championship held within twelve months preceding the Asian Games.

"The Ministry had not disputed that the writ petitioner Kashish Malik fulfilled the criteria and had secured a sixth or better finish in the last Senior Asian Championships held within the preceding twelve months."

Trial Wins Cannot Override Statutory Benchmarks

The bench underscored that while the review petitioner secured a Gold Medal in the Open Selection Trials, she had achieved only the 9th position in the qualifying Senior Asian Taekwondo Championship. In contrast, Kashish Malik had secured the 3rd position, placing her squarely within the primary eligibility bracket.

"What the review petitioner seeks is a fresh adjudication of her own competing claim by inviting this Court to compare the merits of the two athletes. Such an exercise neither arose for consideration in the writ petition nor can it be undertaken in review jurisdiction."

Finding no error apparent on the face of the record or any grounds warranting the invocation of review powers, the high court dismissed the review petition along with all pending applications, affirming the integrity of the selection nomination based on established statutory benchmarks.

Date of Decision: 11 August 2026