Delhi High Court: In the present petition filed by Shruti Vora, a distinguished Indian Dressage athlete with a commendable record at international competitions including the Asian Games and Dressage World Championships challenging the Selection Criteria Notice 2024 issued by the Equestrian Federation of India (‘EFI’) (respondent 1),for representing India in the Dressage event at the upcoming Paris Olympic Games after not being selected, arguing against the retroactive application and fairness of the selection process being arbitrary, discriminatory, and prejudicial and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21. Sanjeev Narula*, J., upheld the current selection criteria, stating that the impugned Selection Criteria, do not reach the threshold of judicial intervention in terms of irrationality, arbitrariness, or perversity.
The Court remarked “The assessment of arbitrariness or perversity in the selection criteria must be founded in the specific context and standards applicable to the governing body in question. The Court acknowledges the relevance of international practices but reiterates that the autonomy and expert judgment of National Sports Federations must not be undermined, in absence of clear evidence of irrationality or gross unfairness in their decision-making processes. In this instance, Respondent 1 has demonstrated adherence to a rational and transparent selection framework, as aligned with the international governing body, FEI, which justifies a deferential approach.”
Background:
In an instant case, the EFI was a national governing body for the sport of Dressage in India and was responsible for governing, promoting and developing equestrian sports in the country, being recognized as a National Sports Federation as notified by the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports and was also affiliated to the Indian Olympic Association, Fédération Équestre Internationale (‘FEI’) and Asian Equestrian Federation. The EFI being an international authority, was responsible for publishing the regulations stipulating the criteria for participation in Equestrian sports at the Paris Olympics, 2024. The FEI had published the ‘Qualification System — Games of the XXXIII Olympiad — Paris 2024’, which stipulates the eligibility criteria for determining the participatory rights in the Olympic event for Dressage, which was the Minimum Eligibility Requirement.
On 19-02-2024, India was allocated with individual slot for the Dressage event at the Paris Olympics, 2024, on 22-02-2024, the EFI published the impugned Selection Criteria titled ‘Selection Criteria for Selection of an Individual Horse Rider Combination for Dressage Discipline to represent India at Paris Olympic Games, 2024’, on its official website.
In June 2024, the respondent 2 was selected by the Executive Committee of respondent 1 to represent India at the Dressage event at the Paris Olympics, 2024.
Analysis:
The Court, after perusal of facts and contentions, noted that it was a well-established principle that judicial intervention in selection criteria set by competent bodies was generally restrained, unless the criteria was demonstrably perserve or irrational. This Court in the case of Manini Kaushik v. National Rifle Association of India 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3629, recognized that selection criteria, developed by experts in their respective fields, was presumed valid in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, it was beyond the scope of judicial review to substitute its judgements for that of the experts concerning the selection of athletes for international sporting events.
The Court after thoroughly examining the contentions stated that the scrutiny of question posted before Court was twofold: firstly, assessing the adherence of the selection criteria to principles of fairness and rationality; and secondly, determining whether the impugned criteria so significantly deviate from these principles, as to necessitate judicial correction.
The Court further noted that, the Minimum Eligibility Requirement (‘MER’) stipulated in the impugned criteria provides that, in order to be eligible to compete in the Dressage event at Paris Olympics, 2024, athletes and their horses must achieve a minimum score of 67%, verified twice at official Olympic qualifying events, by at least two FEI Level 4 judges of a nationality different from that of the athlete. These scores must be from Grand Prix tests conducted at two distinct CDI3*/CDI4*/CDI5*/CDIW/CDIO events. In the scenario where more than one athlete-horse combination meets the MER, the Selection Criteria stipulates that the selection of the final candidate will be based on the highest average scores from the best four Grand Prix events held over the previous year for which only scores from FEI level competitions having 3* and above are considered. Thus, the EFI had adhered to the international standards laid out by the FEI, reflecting a methodical and fair process for determining the athlete-horse combination best suited to represent India at an international level. It combines a balance of achieving high performance thresholds with the necessity of sustained excellence over a period of time.
The Court further noted that, both the petitioner and the respondent 2 had successfully met the minimum requirement of achieving a score of 67% twice at the selected Olympic qualifying events within a timeframe. However, given that India had been allocated only one individual slot for the Dressage event, the Impugned Selection Criteria necessitates that the average of the four best Grand Prix events during the relevant period be considered to determine the final selection, in which respondent 2 surpasses the score of the petitioner, leading his selection to represent India at the Paris Olympic, 2024.
The Court’s role was not to determine the optimal criteria for selection but to ensure that the criteria applied does not violate basic principles of fairness or due process. While the petitioner advocates for a model that prioritizes recent results, the selection system employed by the respondent 1 considering a broader range of performances was neither irrational nor arbitrary.
The Court further stated that the selection criteria lacks clear evidence of arbitrary and capricious decision making. The impugned selection criteria do not reach the threshold of judicial intervention in terms of irrationality arbitrariness, or perversity.
Thus, the Court held that the impugned Selection Criteria were justified and fair, as they aligned with FEI guidelines and were designed to select athletes capable of sustained excellence. Respondent 2 was selected based on their superior average scores over the qualifying period, demonstrating their readiness to represent India at the Olympics.
The Court additonally recognized the dynamic nature of sports and the continuous evolution of competitive standards. The respondent 1, as an expert body, should remain open to reassessing and refining these criteria to adapt to any significant changes in the sport of Dressage or in response to feedback from athletes and other stakeholders. Such flexibility ensures that the selection process not only maintains its integrity and relevance but also aligns with best practices and emerging trends in sports governance. The ability to adapt and respond to the sporting community’s needs was essential for nurturing a healthy competitive environment.
Lastly, the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s commendable dedication to the sport of Dressage noting her exceptional focus and perseverance in balancing her sport with her responsibilities as a mother and hoped she continues to pursue Dressage with the same vigor, enriching both her personal achievements and the sporting community.
[Shruti Vora v. Equestrian Federation of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 8765 of 2024, Decided on: 03-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate; Rishi Agarwala, Maj. Nirvikar Singh, Avishkar Singhvi, Aditya Chatterjee, Parminder Singh, Harsh Mittal, Shreya Sethi, and Siddharth Seem, Advocates.
For Respondents: Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate; Kirtiman Singh, Manmeet Kaur Sareen, and Diva Saigal, Advocates for R-1
Hrishikesh Baruah, Astha Sharma, Parth Goswami, Sanjeev Kaushik, Shreyas Awasthi, Akshay Kumar, Anurag Mishra, and Rudraksh Kaushal, Advocates for R-2.
Vikash Singh and Sagar, Advocates for R-4/IOA.
Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC; Pinky Pawar and Akash Pathak, Advocates for UOI.
