Institutions Cannot Crush Merit at the Gates of the Olympics: Delhi High Court Directs Inclusion of Top-Ranked Skier in Milano Cortina 2026 After Arbitrariness by IOA Ad-hoc Committee

“Merit and excellence cannot be sacrificed at the altar of opaque procedures and arbitrary selections” – In a powerful judgment affirming the primacy of fairness and merit in sports governance, the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition of Manjeet, a top-ranked Indian Cross Country Skier, directing the authorities to facilitate his participation in the XXV Olympic Winter Games, Milano Cortina 2026, after he was arbitrarily excluded from India’s Olympic squad.

Justice Jasmeet Singh ruled that the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and its Ad-hoc Committee acted beyond their mandate, ignored binding international rules, and imposed non-existent eligibility conditions that resulted in the illegal exclusion of the petitioner, despite him being India’s top-ranked athlete as per the official FIS Points List dated 19.01.2026.

“Selection Criteria Cannot Be Rewritten by Administrative Whim” – Court Reaffirms Binding Nature of FIS Qualification System

The case involved interpretation of the FIS Qualification System for the 2026 Winter Olympics, which provided that athlete eligibility would be determined on the basis of age, medical fitness, and FIS points, calculated over a defined period between 01.07.2024 and 18.01.2026.

The petitioner, Manjeet, satisfied all conditions and topped the national FIS Points rankings. However, the IOA Ad-hoc Committee selected another athlete, Mr. Stanzing Lundup, who had performed in the March 2025 World Championship, despite having lower FIS points.

Rejecting the rationale offered by the IOA and Ad-hoc Committee, the Court held:

“Once the International Federation has chosen FIS points as on 19.01.2026 as the determinant of eligibility, it is not open to the respondents to introduce an additional requirement through executive interpretation.”

Further, the Court found that the World Championship was not a mandatory eligibility condition under the FIS Qualification System, and therefore:

“Selection based on extraneous criteria is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable in law.” [Para 45]

“Quota Allocation and Athlete Eligibility Are Distinct” – Misreading of FIS Rules Fatal to Selection Process

The IOA had argued that quota was earned based on World Championship performance and that only athletes who participated in the said event could be selected. The Court emphatically rejected this conflation of quota allocation (Section D) with individual eligibility (Section C):

“Quota allocation operates at the level of the country, whereas eligibility operates at the level of the athlete… Respondents impermissibly conflated quota allocation with athlete eligibility.” [Paras 38–44]

Preparation of Long List Cannot Override Final Eligibility – “Administrative Formalities Cannot Destroy a Career”

The petitioner’s exclusion was further justified on the ground that his name did not feature in the “Long List” submitted to the Olympic authorities by the IOA by the deadline of 26.09.2025. The Court held that the Long List was merely an accreditation mechanism and not determinative of final selection:

“Clause 3.2.2 of the NOC Accreditation Manual merely stipulates that the Long List shall include details of all athletes who may potentially participate… Notably, the said clause does not prescribe participation in the World Championship as a pre-requisite.” [Para 49]

The Court found no document demonstrating that exclusion from the Long List was based on valid grounds and condemned the attempt to hide behind technicalities:

“To say the least, the conduct of respondent No. 1 is casual, callous, arbitrary, malafide and shows disrespect to fair competition.” [Para 52]

Ad-hoc Committee's Actions “Tainted by Bias and Procedural Impropriety” – Transparency, Not Self-Selection, Must Govern Sports Administration

The judgment takes strong exception to the constitution and conduct of the IOA's Ad-hoc Committee, pointing out that:

• It lacked ratification from the IOA Executive Committee.

• It included active athletes, two of whom allegedly selected themselves for international events.

• It applied criteria not traceable to any international regulation.

“The Ad-hoc Committee proceeded to apply selection criteria that are not traceable to any provision of the governing international qualification documents… Such an approach strikes at the very foundation of a rule-based selection process.” [Para 50]

Courts Will Intervene Where Arbitrary Decisions End Careers – Scope of Judicial Review in Sports Selection Affirmed

While recognizing the need for judicial restraint in matters involving expert sports bodies, the Court reaffirmed its duty to intervene when processes are tainted with arbitrariness:

“Processes that disregard merit and transparency… place the credibility of the nation’s sporting institutions at stake. The IOA cannot act as a Super Selector and go beyond its authority.” [Para 45]

Citing Paralympic Committee of India v. Naresh Kumar Sharma, the Court emphasized that interference is justified where there is manifest unfairness, bias, or arbitrariness.

Direction to Facilitate Petitioner’s Participation – Ministry of Youth Affairs Cannot Be a “Mute Spectator”

Even though Olympic entries had closed, the Court noted the serious failure of duty by the IOA and Ministry, and directed:

“Respondent No. 3 (Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports) is directed to try and make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the petitioner is permitted to participate in the XXV Olympic Winter Games, Milano Cortina 2026… Respondents 1 and 2 shall take immediate steps to provide full support.” [Para 57]

The Court further criticized the Ministry’s silence:

“The Ministry cannot act as a mute spectator or distance itself from the legitimate grievances of athletes whose once-in-a-lifetime opportunities depend on institutional accountability.” [Para 59]

An Institutional Wake-Up Call

This judgment stands as a resounding call for accountability, transparency, and meritocracy in Indian sports governance. By granting relief to a deserving athlete on the cusp of international representation, the Court has ensured that career-altering decisions are not taken behind closed doors or based on invisible criteria.

Date of Decision: 30 January 2026