The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the selection of Shresht Raju Mantena to represent India in Show Jumping at the 2026 Youth Olympic Games. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the selection process did not suffer from arbitrariness, perversity, mala fides or violation of the notified selection criteria.
The judgment was delivered on September 24, 2026, in an appeal filed by Master Shubh Chowdhari through his father against the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) and other respondents.
The dispute arose from EFI’s selection process for the 2026 Youth Olympic Games. Seven Indian riders had obtained Certificates of Capability (COCs), making them eligible for consideration. EFI’s selection criteria required assessment of factors including technical difficulty, consistency of international performance, recency of results, stability of the horse-rider combination and championship readiness.
Initially, the Selection Committee ranked Shresht Raju Mantena first, Vaasvi Khaitan second and the appellant third. Following the appellant’s challenge, EFI reconsidered the selection. In its second decision dated August 27, 2026, Mantena was placed first, the appellant second and Khaitan third.
The methodology adopted in Selection Decision II assessed the riders' performances during the relevant assessment period along with their COC results, gave equal weight to results at 130 cm and 135 cm, excluded two-phase competitions where only the first phase was completed, and treated completed rounds involving not more than eight penalties as qualifying performances.
He contended that consistency should instead have been assessed through the average number of penalties incurred by each rider, whereas EFI maintained that the methodology merely operationalised the notified criteria and was uniformly applied to all seven riders.
The Division Bench rejected the argument that riders had to be ranked according to average penalties. The Court held that “consistency” ordinarily concerns repetition of a prescribed standard of performance across a body of results and cannot simply be reduced to an arithmetic average based on a limited number of performances.
The Court also found that the eight-penalty threshold had been applied uniformly and was not a criterion introduced for the first time in Selection Decision II. It noted that the appellant himself had relied upon the same threshold while arguing that his performances demonstrated consistency. His own 12-penalty result was excluded on the same basis applied to other riders.
On judicial review, the Bench relied on its decision in Anush Agarwalla v. Ad-Hoc Committee for Governance of Equestrian Federation of India and Others, observing that courts do not ordinarily reassess the comparative sporting merit determined by expert selection committees.
“It is well settled that Courts do not sit in appeal over the decisions of selection committees, nor do they reassess the relative merits of candidates. The determination as to who should represent the country in an international sporting event is ordinarily best left to experts in the field. In matters concerning selection for international competitive events, the Court would not ordinarily interfere with the selection criteria framed by the concerned expert body, or with the manner in which relative merit is evaluated, unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, perverse or contrary to law.”
The Court nevertheless observed that the Selection Criteria did not define the assessment period or qualifying threshold with precision and directed EFI to frame and implement future selection criteria and timelines with greater clarity.
The Delhi High Court held that the methodology adopted in Selection Decision II had a rational nexus with the notified criteria, was applied uniformly to all seven COC holders and was supported by reasons recorded at the relevant time.
Finding no legal infirmity warranting interference, the Bench dismissed the appeal against the judgment dated September 17, 2026. All pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Master Shubh Chowdhari through his father v. Equestrian Federation of India & Ors.
Case Number: LPA 761/2026, CM APPL. 65152/2026 & CM APPL. 65153/2026
