"Judicial review of executive decisions in sports selection must balance athletes' rights with administrative discretion." Discuss with recent examples.

Courts can review executive action under Article 226, but sports selection involves policy, spending and expert judgement. In September 2026 the Delhi High Court refused to order the Centre to send athlete Shubham Kumar in men's 94-kg jiu-jitsu at the 20th Asian Games [1]. That ruling shows courts must protect athletes against arbitrary decisions without taking over selection.

Case for administrative discretion

• Policy choice: Whether India enters an event at all is for the executive to decide. The Court held that it cannot order the government to send an athlete to an event it chose not to enter [1].
• Merit-based filters: MYAS criteria for Asian Games 2026 consider only athletes with a "real chance of winning medal", such as a top-6 Asian finish or ranking in individual sports where judges or bouts decide the result [2].
• Procedural discipline: Kumar's name was forwarded after the cut-off date [1]. Waiving the deadline for one athlete would be unfair to those who met it, so equal treatment under Article 14 supports the government here.

Case for protecting athletes' rights

• Non-arbitrariness: Article 14 still allows a challenge where selection breaks the government's own published criteria. The ruling covers only an event India chose not to enter.
• Federation lapses: The athlete loses the chance when an official misses the deadline, and the official faces no stated penalty [1].
• Vicious cycle: A strict medal test can shut newer sports out of the international exposure they need to reach the top six [2].

Institutional middle path

• National Sports Governance Act, 2025: creates a National Sports Tribunal with the powers of a civil court. It is headed by a serving or former Supreme Court judge (or a High Court Chief Justice), and appeals go to the Supreme Court or the Court of Arbitration for Sport [3]. The Tribunal Rules were notified in 2026 [4].
• Reforms: an urgent track for disputes before multi-sport events, a small number of development places for new sports, and holding federations accountable for missed deadlines.

Courts should check whether a decision was legal and fair, while the executive decides who is selected. Clear published criteria, federations that answer for their lapses and fast expert tribunals can protect both merit and fairness. This fits the constitutional promise of equality and India's aim of becoming a strong sporting nation.