New Delhi [India], May 29 (ANI): As directed by the Delhi High Court, Aditi Chauhan from the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and MM Somaiya from the Union Sports Ministry/Sports Authority of India (SAI) will be present as observers during the trials of wrestler Vinesh Phogat at Indira Gandhi Stadium on Saturday, as per sources from the Union Sports Ministry.

The Supreme Court on Friday permitted veteran wrestler and Olympian Vinesh Phogat to participate in the Asian Games 2026 selection trials while expressing concern over judicial interference in sports administration matters.

'If anybody else, it would have been on a different footing. She's made the country proud', the Court said.

At the same time, the apex court expressed reservations about the manner in which the Delhi High Court had dealt with the matter, observing that easy and quick judicial interference in such cases could create complications in national and international sporting schedules.

'You have been an excellent athlete. But Country first', the Supreme Court remarked while hearing a plea filed by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) challenging the Delhi High Court's order permitting Phogat to participate in the trials.

'These are not medical college admissions but national and international sports. It can't be like Courts will interfere in this manner and disrupt the entire schedule', Justice PS Narasimha verbally remarked during the hearing.

While granting interim relief to Phogat, the Supreme Court also sought her response on the petition filed by the WFI challenging her participation in the trials. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on Monday, June 1.

In its May 22 order, the Delhi High Court had directed that Phogat be allowed to participate in the selection trials scheduled for May 30 and 31.

The High Court had further ordered that the trials be video-recorded and conducted under the supervision of independent observers appointed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) to ensure transparency in the selection process.

The directions were issued by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia while hearing Phogat's appeal against an interim order passed by a single-judge Bench.

The single judge had declined to grant interim relief in her pending writ petition challenging the WFI's selection policy as well as a show-cause notice issued against her.

Earlier, Phogat had challenged the WFI's Asian Games Selection Policy dated February 25, 2026 and a subsequent circular dated May 6, 2026, which restricted eligibility for the selection trials to medal winners from specified domestic tournaments conducted in 2025 and 2026.

According to the order, Phogat had informed the International Testing Agency (ITA) in December 2024 that she was taking a sabbatical on account of pregnancy and intended to return to competition later. She gave birth to her first child in July 2025 and resumed training thereafter.

The ITA subsequently confirmed that she would be eligible to compete from January 1, 2026, onwards.

The Court observed that because of her maternity-related absence, Phogat could not participate in the championships that formed the basis for eligibility under the WFI policy, resulting in her exclusion from the selection trials.

The Bench prima facie found the policy and circular to be arbitrary and discriminatory as they restricted participation only to medal winners from specific events, thereby excluding athletes like Phogat.

The Court also made strong remarks against the observations made by WFI in the show-cause notice issued to Phogat over the Paris Olympics 2024 weigh-in controversy.

Referring to remarks describing the incident as a 'national embarrassment,' the Bench termed such observations 'deplorable' and said they appeared vindictive and premeditated, particularly when the Court of Arbitration for Sport had already observed that there was no wrongdoing on Phogat's part.

At the same time, the Division Bench clarified that it had not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case and that the pending writ petition before the Single Judge would be decided independently on its own merits. (ANI)