Delhi High Court directs efforts to include excluded cross‑country skier in India's Milano Cortina 2026 Olympic list

A single‑judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh heard a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the exclusion of an Indian cross‑country skier from the list of athletes for the XXV Olympic Winter Games, Milano Cortina 2026. The petitioner sought mandamus directing the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and its Ad‑hoc Committee to include him in the Indian entry, and assailed the constitution and functioning of the Ad‑hoc Committee as arbitrary and conflicted.

The Court allowed the primary reliefs seeking inclusion and a declaration that exclusion was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21. The judge held that the IOA and the Ad‑hoc Committee could not import eligibility conditions beyond the objective criteria prescribed by the International Ski Federation (FIS) and the Qualification System. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Quota allocation operates at the level of the country, whereas eligibility operates at the level of the athlete. Conflating the two amounts to a fundamental misreading of the Qualification System. The respondent No. 1 and 2 cannot import an additional condition not prescribed by the International Federation. Once the International Federation has chosen FIS points as on 19.01.2026, the determinant of eligibility, it is not open to the respondents to introduce an additional requirement through executive interpretation. Such an approach would defeat the uniformity and certainty that the qualification system seeks to achieve." The judge also recorded that "the selection process is manifestly arbitrary and unfair" and directed the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to make all reasonable efforts to permit the petitioner to participate, with IOA and the Ad‑hoc Committee to provide full support.

Background

The petitioner was a nationally medal‑winning cross‑country skier who, according to the FIS list published on 19.01.2026, held the best FIS ranking in the relevant assessment period (01.07.2024–18.01.2026). The IOA had formed an Ad‑hoc Committee to select athletes for ski and snowboard disciplines; the petitioner alleged the Committee lacked Executive Committee ratification and included active athletes, creating a conflict of interest. The Committee published a long list deadline of 26.09.2025 and later selected another athlete, Stanzing Lundup, relying on his March 2025 World Championship performance despite the petitioner’s superior FIS points.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIS Qualification System (Sections C and E) prescribed exhaustive, points‑based eligibility and that the IOA’s retrospective reliance on World Championship participation and failure to publish discipline‑specific criteria contravened the FIS framework and the Ministry’s March 2025 directions mandating transparency. The IOA and the Ad‑hoc Committee contended that the World Championship constituted a qualifying event and that long‑list inclusion and deadlines were mandatory; they further relied on the NOC Accreditation and Sports Entry Manual and pleaded limited judicial intervention in expert‑driven sports selection.

The Court analysed the FIS Qualification System and the NOC manual, distinguishing athlete eligibility (addressed in Section C) from quota allocation (Section D). It held that Section C’s objective, points‑based criteria governed athlete eligibility and that participation in the World Championship was not prescribed as a mandatory eligibility condition. The judge found that the Ad‑hoc Committee had applied criteria "not traceable to any provision of the governing international qualification documents" and effectively rewrote the qualification framework by restricting consideration to March 2025 results. The Court observed that processes denying merit and transparency harmed athletes and the credibility of sporting institutions.

In conclusion, the Court allowed prayers A and B, declared the exclusion arbitrary and unfair, and directed the Ministry (Respondent No. 3) to use reasonable efforts to enable the petitioner’s participation in Milano Cortina 2026, with IOA and the Ad‑hoc Committee mandated to cooperate. The Court took a strict view of the respondents’ conduct and required a detailed reply on challenge to constitution/functioning of the Ad‑hoc Committee (prayer C) within four weeks, listing the matter for further adjudication on 13.04.2026.

Case No.: W.P.(C) 936/2026 Case Title: Manjeet v. Indian Olympic Association and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Neha Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gopal Jain, Senior Advocate; Ms. Aashits Khanna, Advocate; Ms. Aanya Agarwal, Advocate; Mr. Vidushpat Singhania, Advocate (for R1‑2); Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel; Mr. Mukesh K. Tiwari, Advocate; Mr. Shubhendu Kaushik, GP, Advocate (for UOI)