WFI withdraws India from World Ch'ship, writes to UWW about govt interference
New Delhi (PTI): The Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) on Wednesday withdrew the Indian team from the World Championship, conveying to world governing body, UWW, that the sports ministry is interfering with its autonomy.
The senior World Championship in 12 non-Olympic categories is scheduled to be held in Tirana, Albania from October 28.
The WFI had recently announced selection trials for the U23 and World Championship, which was challenged as contempt of court by the protesting wrestlers who questioned the legality of the selection by the suspended federation.
WFI withdrew the selection trials notice and the court, on October 4, decided not to proceed with the contempt petition.
"Satyawart Kadian, the husband of Sakshi Malik, approached the court recently saying that the WFI should be charged with contempt of court. We won't be able to send the Indian team for the World Championship now, we have conveyed this to the UWW," a WFI source told PTI.
"This is all happening because of the ministry's suspension. There are no grounds to keep the suspension. If the ministry lifts the suspension, all these issues won't crop up. It's just pathetic that wrestlers have to suffer because of a few wrestlers and the ministry is not lifting the suspension," the source added.
The WFI was suspended by the Sports Ministry on December 24 soon after the polls were conducted to elect the new office-bearers.
"Unfortunately, the MYAS (ministry) continues to interfere in the autonomy of the WFI. The MYAS has ordered on 24th December 2023 to the WFI to cease and desist from discharging the day to day administration of WFI and had directed the Indian Olympic Association (NOC of India) to make an Ad-Hoc Committee for governance of WFI," WFI President Sanjay Singh wrote in his letter to UWW President Nenad Lalovic.
The Indian Olympic Association (IOA), though, had disbanded the ad-hoc panel managing the Federation in March this year after UWW lifted the ban on WFI in February.
WFI put on record support from the PT Usha-led Indian Olympic Association (IOA).
"Though the IOA through its President Ms. PT Usha had supported the WFI in the case, it is the MYAS that is the problem creator because of their letter of 24th December 2023 which is being used as a tool to interfere in the administration of the WFI by the wrestlers."
The WFI began to function but wrestlers Bajrang Punia, Vinesh Phogat, Sakshi Malik, and her husband Satyawart filed a plea before the court for appointing an administrator to manage the sports body.
In an interim order, the court said that the IOA's decision to dissolve the ad-hoc committee was incompatible with the sports ministry's suspension order.
It said that until the suspension order was recalled, it was necessary for the ad-hoc committee to manage the federation's affairs. The IOA, though, told the court that it cannot re-constitute the panel.
The WFI has now asked UWW to invoke article 6.3 of UWW Regulations
and take appropriate action and also use Thursday's communication as a complaint to the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
Article 6.3 of the UWW Constitution states that, "Affiliated and Associated Members shall govern and administer their activities independently. They
shall preserve their autonomy without influence by any political, religious or economic pressures."
"Governments and other public authorities shall only be entitled to verify the use of their financial grants by the National Federations."
In the Olympic year, World Championships are held in four categories in each of the three styles -- men's freestyle, women and greco-roman -- instead of all 10.
Indian teams:
Men's freestyle: Udit (61kg), Manish Goswami (70kg), Parvinder Singh (79kg), Sandeep Mann (92kg).
Greco-Roman: Sanjeev (55kg), Chetan (63kg), Ankit Gulia (72kg), Rohit Dahiya (82kg).
Women: Kirti (55kg), Mansi (59kg), Manisha (65kg), Bipasha (72kg).
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
