Master Shubh Chowdhari (through his father) vs. Equestrian Federation of India & Ors.
Background
A minor show-jumping rider challenged his second-place ranking (behind another rider) in EFI's revised selection decision for the Youth Olympic Games 2026, arguing that riders should have been ranked by their average penalty score across qualifying rounds rather than by the number of "qualifying" low-penalty rounds they completed: a method under which he claimed he would have ranked first. This decision followed an earlier successful challenge by the same appellant to a prior, height-biased selection decision.
Decision Breakdown
The Division Bench held that "consistency," the criterion actually notified by EFI, reasonably meant repeated low-penalty performances rather than a bare arithmetic average that could reward a rider who competed less often; it noted the appellant's own average-penalty calculation had shifted between his representation and his court submissions, undermining its objectivity. The methodology used by the Selection Committee, a fixed assessment window, equal weight to different jump heights, exclusion of incomplete rounds, and an 8-penalty qualifying threshold (a standard the appellant himself had invoked), was applied uniformly to all seven riders and was adequately reasoned in the committee's minutes. The Court found no arbitrariness, mala fides, or departure from notified criteria, and dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
When a selection body must fill gaps left by loosely worded criteria, a methodology applied consistently to every candidate and grounded in the criteria's stated goals (here, "consistency" of performance) will survive judicial review even if an alternative method might have favoured the challenger.