New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) to reach a final decision within a fortnight regarding the show-cause notice issued to wrestler Vinesh Phogat, which alleges instances of indiscipline and violations of anti-doping regulations.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma concluded proceedings on Phogat’s petition on Monday. The challenge had initially targeted the show-cause notice, as well as the WFI’s selection policies and circulars. The court closed the matter after counsel for the federation argued that the athlete's primary grievance—concerning her participation in the Asian Games selection trials—had become redundant.

"Within two weeks, decide the show-cause notice dated May 9 under intimation to the petitioner and the court," the judge ordered while disposing of the petition.

Representatives for the WFI confirmed that Phogat would be granted a personal hearing before any formal decision is rendered.

While Phogat’s senior counsel argued that the petition highlighted "larger issues" regarding the federation’s broader selection policies, the court noted that those concerns would require the filing of a separate, fresh writ petition.

"This can be disposed of, and then you can file a fresh writ petition," the court stated.

The court noted that, in accordance with previous judicial instructions, Phogat had been allowed to compete in the Asian Games trials. During the hearing, Phogat's legal team also mentioned that she has since received an additional show-cause notice regarding her conduct during those trials.

The WFI had issued the original show-cause notice on 9 May, declaring Phogat ineligible for domestic competitions until 26 June 2026. The federation cited a mandatory six-month notification period for athletes returning from retirement under established anti-doping protocols.

In her initial challenge, Phogat contested the WFI's selection framework, which restricted trial eligibility exclusively to medallists from specific tournaments. Phogat argued that the federation's chosen "qualification window" unfairly overlapped with her documented maternity leave. She contended that this created a "closed and inflexible gatekeeping mechanism" that was inherently discriminatory and arbitrary.

PTI