On Tuesday, the ministry in its order said the “continued governance void was affecting training and competition exposure of wrestlers and could hurt India’s medal prospects in the 2026 Asian Games and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.”

During the hearing on Tuesday, the ministry represented by senior advocate Jayant Mehta informed the Delhi high court that it had revoked the ban on Monday. The WFI represented by advocate Hemant Phalpher submitted that nothing remained in its appeal in light of the revocation.

The bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela said the protesting wrestlers Bajrang Punia and Vinesh Phogat were free to challenge the ministry’s order, since the scope of the present proceedings was only confined to the August 16 order of the ad hoc committee’s mandate.

Punia and Phogat represented by senior advocate Rahul Mehra along with advocate Chaitaniya Gosain opposed the Centre’s decision, saying that the same did not mention anything about WFI’s compliance with the sports code and did not give any information about the composition of the spot verification team. The report of the spot inspection which formed the basis of the revocation was not available to them, he added.

The senior lawyer further said that though the WFI had earlier asserted that the operation of the August 16 order had barred participation of the Indian wrestlers in at least six events, since the UWW only recognised the teams sent by the body affiliated to it, however the same was not true. Mehra further submitted that the administration of the suspended WFI in September, last year, had selected a team to represent India in a championship at Albania and the same was sanctioned by the Centre.

“As per the directions of the high court the ministry decided to lift the suspension so that our wrestlers can participate at the Asian and World Championships. If the suspension was not lifted our wrestlers would not have been able to participate at the World Championships and that would have been grave injustice to them,” Union sports minister Mansukh Mandaviya told reporters on Monday.

“We are very disappointed with the ministry’s decision, but it is not hard to explain. Rather than acting neutral, the ministry has always worked with WFI and Brij Bhushan. Today’s order proves that Brij Bhushan’s influence is still very much intact. Nothing has changed for us. We have been fighting this futile battle for the sake of our conscience. As far as the argument of not being able to send teams for international events is concerned, the ministry did clear the team for junior World Championships but chose not to give a go ahead to teams for the Ranking Series. Why? We don’t understand why the government is backing Brij Bhushan so much. They could have formed an ad hoc committee and allowed them to conduct trials for Asian Championships, but they just lifted the suspension which is very disappointing,” Bajrang told HT on Tuesday.

The suspension

The WFI with Sanjay Singh as president was suspended on December 24, 2023, immediately after it came to power following a bitter tussle in the wake of protests by wrestlers against former president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The ministry said it suspended the federation in the wake of “lapses regarding governance and procedural integrity by the newly elected body, which apparently was in (the) control of former office-bearers in complete disregard of provisions of sports code.”

The Indian Olympic Association had dissolved its ad hoc committee to run WFI on March 18,2024, after world body United World Wrestling lifted its ban on the national federation. However, wrestling’s governance continued to be in crisis. The Delhi high court, on a plea by protesting wrestlers, passed an order on August 16 to restore the ad hoc committee to run the sport with the sports ministry having suspended the national body.

The suspended WFI was unable to organise national competitions and hold selection trials to send teams to international competitions. Indian wrestlers have missed two important international ranking series this year and the Asian Championships participation was also on the line. The high court last week had expressed concerns over the lack of a competent body to conduct the trials and select teams for international events. The sports ministry then told the court that it was reviewing its order suspending WFI.

Reforms in place

In its order, the sports ministry said it sought a report from WFI on January 7 on the “corrective measures” undertaken by it to address concerns raised by it.

WFI has, in its reply, submitted the steps taken, including “formation of Athletes Commission with voting rights, Ethics Commission, establishment of Sexual Harassment Committee and Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) that is present in all competitions and events of WFI and continues to take inputs from the athletes regarding their well being and safety.”

However, the ministry said WFI must “revert amendments carried out during the suspension period and have balance of power among the designated office-bearers and provide checks and balance in the decision-making process.” WFI has been asked to complete this process within a month.

The WFI general body authorised president Singh to take up some of the roles of secretary Prem Chand Lochab, who came to WFI with the support of the protesting wrestlers but chose to stay away from WFI meetings as the federation was suspended.

“We will call a meeting and decide on the next step,” said a WFI official when asked about the four-week time given to revert the amendments during the suspension period.

The ministry also said: “any person who is not elected an office-bearer, as also suspended or terminated salaried officials for WFI, must remain completely disassociated from the federation and its affiliate units.

“The WFI must ensure that selection for all international events should be done in a free, fair and transparent manner as per the provisions of the Sports Code and regulations issued from time-to-time by the UWW. The WFI shall ensure adherence to Sports Code, principles of good governance and athlete welfare policies.”

With inputs from Shantanu Srivastava.