Supreme Court Refuses Interim Relief in Asian Games Dressage Team Selection Case

Apex Court Focuses on Improving Sports Selection Process

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant interim relief to two dressage riders who challenged their exclusion from India's Dressage team for the 2026 Asian Games. While refusing to intervene in the immediate selection dispute, the Court said it would examine broader issues related to making the sports selection process more transparent and institutionalised.

A Bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed the riders' request for interim relief but agreed to issue notice on the larger question of reforms in the selection mechanism.

Supreme Court hears petition challenging India's Dressage team selection for the 2026 Asian Games.

Court Declines to Reopen Individual Selection Dispute

During the hearing, the Bench made it clear that it would not revisit individual selection decisions at this stage.

The Court observed that its primary concern is whether the existing selection framework followed by sports federations requires stronger institutional safeguards rather than addressing last-minute disputes involving individual athletes.

The judges noted that the issue before them should focus on improving the overall system instead of altering the composition of a team already selected for international competition.

Riders Challenged Reserve List Decision

The petition was filed by dressage riders Anush Agarwalla and Sudipti Hajela, who were placed on the reserve list instead of being included in India's final squad for the 2026 Asian Games.

The riders approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court declined to interfere with the final team selection despite identifying procedural shortcomings in the process adopted by the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI).

Delhi High Court Had Flagged Procedural Lapses

Earlier this month, the Delhi High Court observed that the Equestrian Federation of India had failed to fully comply with certain provisions of its own selection policy and had acted with undue haste while preparing the final selection list.

However, the High Court decided against ordering a fresh selection exercise because the deadline for submitting India's final squad to the organisers was approaching. The court noted that reopening the process could affect India's participation in the upcoming Asian Games.

Instead, it directed the federation to strictly follow its selection criteria in future selections.

Supreme Court Stresses Institutional Reforms

During the proceedings, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the riders, argued that the petitioners deserved consideration under the established selection process after being placed on the waiting list.

The Supreme Court, however, expressed reluctance to intervene in sports selection disputes involving individual athletes shortly before major international events.

The Bench observed that judicial intervention should be limited and that greater attention should instead be given to establishing a transparent, consistent and institutionalised selection system for sports federations across the country.

What Is Dressage?

Dressage is a competitive equestrian discipline in which horse and rider perform a series of carefully choreographed movements designed to demonstrate precision, balance, training and harmony.

The event is one of the recognised disciplines in international equestrian competitions, including the Asian Games and the Olympics.

What Happens Next?

Although interim relief has been denied, the Supreme Court will continue hearing the broader issue concerning reforms in sports selection procedures.

The outcome of the case could influence how national sports federations conduct athlete selection in future, with greater emphasis on transparency, fairness and adherence to established guidelines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has chosen not to interfere with India's Dressage team selection for the 2026 Asian Games, while signalling its willingness to examine systemic improvements in the selection process. The decision highlights the judiciary's preference for strengthening institutional mechanisms rather than intervening in individual selection disputes close to major sporting events.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Why did the Supreme Court refuse interim relief?

The Court declined to interfere with the immediate team selection but agreed to examine broader reforms to improve transparency and consistency in sports selection procedures.

Who filed the petition?

Dressage riders Anush Agarwalla and Sudipti Hajela challenged their exclusion after being placed on the reserve list for India's Asian Games squad.

What did the Delhi High Court decide?

The Delhi High Court found procedural lapses in the selection process but declined to order a fresh selection because of the approaching deadline for submitting the final team.

What is dressage?

Dressage is an equestrian sport where riders and horses perform a sequence of precise movements that are judged on accuracy, control and harmony.

Rahul Gandhi To Be MP Again, Can Contest Polls After Supreme Court Order

Modi Surname Case: The trial judge has awarded the maximum sentence of two years in the case, the top court observed in its judgement, adding that it would not have attracted disqualification if the sentence was a day lesser. 

                   Rahul Gandhi To Be MP Again, Can Contest Polls After Supreme Court Order 

New Delhi: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's conviction in a criminal defamation case over his 'Modi surname' remark was put on hold by the Supreme Court today, which said that while his remarks were not in good taste, his disqualification from parliament would affect his constituents.

The trial judge had awarded the maximum sentence of two years in the case, the top court observed, pointing out that it would not have attracted disqualification as an MP if the sentence was a day lesser.

Rahul Gandhi had in April told a sessions court in Surat his conviction by a magistrate's court in the 2019 defamation case was erroneous, patently perverse, and he was sentenced in a manner so as to attract disqualification as a Member of Parliament. He had said he was treated harshly by the trial court, which was "overwhelmingly influenced" by his status as an MP.

No doubt that the utterances by the petitioner were not in good taste, the Supreme Court said today, "and the petitioner ought to have been more careful in making speeches".

"The ramifications of disqualification not just affect the right of the individual but also the electorate," it said.

This was Rahul Gandhi's last chance before acquittal, and will allow him to attend the parliament and contest elections, his lawyer earlier argued in the court, adding that the High Court had reserved its judgement for 66 days, and due to conviction in the case, Mr Gandhi has already lost two Parliament sessions.

A Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar was hearing Rahul Gandhi's request for a stay on his conviction. The Gujarat High Court had earlier refused to stay his conviction in the criminal defamation case.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Rahul Gandhi, said the trial has been completed, and Mr Gandhi has even been convicted, yet there is no evidence so far.

Mr Singhvi said this is the first time 30 crore people have held to be an identifiable class. "They are amorphous, non-homogenous...communities, castes, and groups with appellation 'Modi' are totally different," he said.

Justice Gavai had at the beginning of the hearing said Mr Gandhi will have to make out an exceptional case for a stay on conviction, to which Mr Singhvi said he was not arguing conviction today.

Mr Singhvi argued the complainant Purnesh Modi's original surname is not Modi, and he had changed it.

"The complainant Purnesh Modi himself said that his original surname was not Modi. He belongs to Modh Vanika Samaj," he argued, and claimed not a single of the persons Mr Gandhi had named during his speech have sued him.

"Interestingly, everybody who is aggrieved in this very 'small' community of 13 crores, the only people suing are BJP office-holders. Very strange," Mr Singhvi said.

The Supreme Court then pointed out that the trial court has also spoken about Mr Gandhi's criminal antecedents.

"They have cited 13 cases but no conviction in any of those cases. How are these cited for criminal antecedents? I am not a hardened criminal...No conviction despite...look at the chart. Full of cases filed by BJP karyakartas, but never any conviction," Mr Singhvi responded.

Advocate Singhvi then pointed out that the High Court treats this as a serious offence involving a moral turpitude.

"Not a single material of moral turpitude. Not a single judgement. This is non-cognisable, bailable, and compoundable. Not against society, not kidnapping, rape, murder...maximum sentence of 2 years... How can this become an offence involving moral turpitude?" he said.

There's no other case where two years sentence has been given, he added.

Mr Gandhi while maintaining that he was not guilty, on Wednesday requested the top court to stay his two-year conviction, enabling him to participate in the ongoing sittings of the Lok Sabha and sessions thereafter.

At a rally in Karnataka's Kolar in April 2019, Rahul Gandhi, in a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said, "How come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?".

In an affidavit before the top court, the former Wayanad MP said that he has always maintained that he is not guilty of the offence and that the "conviction is unsustainable" and if he had to apologise and compound the offence, "he would have done it much earlier".

Rahul Gandhi has challenged the trial court order in the Surat Sessions court, where the appeal is pending.

Lindsey Graham Calls Roe v. Wade Leak the ‘Saddest’ Day for Supreme Court

 Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday declared that the “saddest chapter in the history of the United States Supreme Court” occurred not when the judicial body ruled that people of African ancestry had no claim to citizenship in the United States, or when it upheld state segregation, or when it allowed the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II.

Rather, the Trump ally said on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program, the Supreme Court hit a new low on Monday, when Politico reported on the existence of a draft majority opinion showing that the court is poised to roll back abortion protections established by Roe v. Wade. Chief Justice John Roberts has since directed the marshal of the court to investigate the source of the leak, which he called a “betrayal” and a “singular and egregious breach” of trust among those working at the court.

“This was despicable, it was dangerous and it was dumb,” Graham said on Monday. Discussing the leaker, whose identity and political affiliations are unknown, he added:

“If it’s a conservative, you are a traitor to the cause. If it’s a liberal, you are the dumbest person in Washington because it is not going to change the midterms. You are not going to scare any conservative judge away from repealing Roe v. Wade — and it should be repealed, it should go back to the states — and you are adding a narrative to a storyline that you want to win and you don’t give a damn about how you win.”

In the 24 hours since the report’s publication, many on the right seem to have honed in on the impropriety of the leak itself, with many arguing it was designed to intimidate the court’s conservative majority. Some even called it an “insurrection” against the judicial body, while others hastily pushed for the leaker to be charged with some sort of crime, though it is unclear what law, if any, would apply.

Graham nodded in agreement when Hannity asked if the leak was about intimidation.

“I think [the leaker’s] motivation was to scare the court, to change its mind about repealing Roe v. Wade,” Graham said. He did not flesh out what punishment he believes the leaker should face for creating the “saddest chapter in the history of the United States Supreme Court.”

Readmore:https://www.thedailybeast.com/lindsey-graham-calls-roe-v-wade-leak-the-saddest-day-for-supreme-court?ref=wrap