Delhi High Court Orders Cross-Country Skier Manjeet's Inclusion For Milano Cortina 2026, Terms IOA Selection Process Arbitrary
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the exclusion of a cross-country skier Manjeet from India’s Olympic contingent for the XXV Winter Olympic Games, Milano Cortina 2026, was manifestly arbitrary, unfair, and contrary to the governing international qualification framework. The Court allowed the challenge to the athlete’s non-selection and directed that all reasonable efforts be made to enable the athlete’s participation in the Games. It found that the national Olympic body and its ad-hoc selection mechanism had applied criteria not traceable to the notified international eligibility framework, resulting in the athlete’s exclusion despite meeting the relevant qualification benchmarks. The Union sports ministry was asked to take steps, with the Olympic body to provide support.
The writ petition arose from a challenge to the selection process for athletes representing India in Cross Country Skiing at the XXV Olympic Winter Games, Milano Cortina 2026. The petitioner, Manjeet an Indian cross-country skier, claimed eligibility based on international rankings and performance during the prescribed assessment period. The grievance stemmed from the petitioner’s exclusion from Olympic consideration despite holding a superior ranking under the International Federation of Ski and Snowboard (FIS) points system.
The Indian Olympic Association constituted an Ad-hoc Committee to oversee selections in Ski and Snowboard events. The petitioner contended that this Committee applied criteria not found in the notified international qualification framework, particularly by treating participation in a World Championship event as mandatory. It was asserted that no discipline-specific selection criteria were published, despite binding governmental instructions requiring transparency and objectivity.
The respondents maintained that participation in the World Championship was essential, relying on provisions relating to quota allocation and the preparation of a long list under Olympic accreditation manuals. They further argued that all timelines had expired, rendering the relief infructuous. The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports stated that it had no role in athlete selection and only sought clarification from the Olympic body. The dispute therefore centered on the interpretation of the FIS Qualification System, the legality of the applied selection criteria, and compliance with principles of fairness and transparency.
The Court examined the scope of judicial review in matters involving expert bodies and recorded that “interference is warranted only where the decision-making process is arbitrary, unfair, or contrary to law.” It noted that while restraint is ordinarily exercised in sports selections, the present case raised issues of manifest arbitrariness.
On the governing framework, the Court recorded that “the eligibility conditions are exhaustively set out under Section C” of the FIS Qualification System. It observed that “nowhere in Section C, which governs athlete eligibility, is participation in the World Championship prescribed as a mandatory condition.” The Court clarified that eligibility was determined by age, medical compliance, and FIS points thresholds.
Distinguishing quota allocation from athlete eligibility, the Court stated that “Section D deals exclusively with the allocation and utilisation of quota places” and “does not introduce any additional athlete-level eligibility condition.” It further observed that “conflating the two amounts to a fundamental misreading of the Qualification System.”
Addressing the long list requirement, the Court recorded that “the preparation of the long list cannot override or prejudge the Final List,” which must be based on FIS points accumulated over the prescribed assessment period. It noted that no document demonstrated participation in the World Championship as a determinative criterion for inclusion in the long list.
On the conduct of the selection authorities, the Court observed that “the Ad-hoc Committee proceeded to apply selection criteria that are not traceable to any provision of the governing international qualification documents.” It further recorded that “such an approach strikes at the very foundation of a rule-based selection process.”
The Court also took note of the respondents’ reliance on unpublished accreditation manuals and observed that these were “admittedly not available in the public domain and, more importantly, were never communicated to the athletes.” It recorded that the conduct of the respondents “deprived the petitioner of his valuable opportunity to represent the country at the pinnacle of sports.”
The Court directed that “the selection process is manifestly arbitrary and unfair” and consequently allowed the reliefs sought against the impugned exclusion from Olympic selection.
“Respondent No. 3 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.” In aid of this process,“respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are also directed that they shall take immediate steps to provide full support to respondent No. 3 in making necessary arrangements.”
With respect to the challenge concerning the constitution and functioning of the Ad-hoc Committee: “as regards prayer C is concerned the respondents shall file a detailed reply within 4 weeks from today,” and the matter be “listed on 13.04.2026 for adjudication of Prayer C. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Neha Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gopal Jain, Senior Advocate; Ms. Aashits Khanna, Advocate; Ms. Aanya Agarwal, Advocate; Mr. Vidushpat Singhania, Advocate, Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel; Mr. Mukesh K. Tiwari; Mr. Shubhendu Kaushik, Government Pleaders (for Union of India)
Case Title: Manjeet v. Indian Olympic Association & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:759
Case Number: W.P.(C) 936/2026
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
