Whole of India is with her, she's champion: Sporting fraternity on CAS dismissing Vinesh's appeal
New Delhi (PTI): The Indian sporting fraternity reacted with disappointment at the Court of Arbitration for Sport's (CAS) verdict rejecting wrestler Vinesh Phogat's appeal against her Olympic disqualification but said she will remain a champion for them.
The ad-hoc division of the CAS on Wednesday rejected Vinesh's appeal against a gut-wrenching disqualification from the Paris Olympics 50kg final for being 100gm overweight, which dashed any hopes of securing a belated silver medal.
"It's disappointing but we can't do anything about that," hockey legend PR Sreejesh, who retired after inspiring the Indian team to a second consecutive Olympic bronze medal in the Paris Games, told PTI Videos.
Tokyo Olympics bronze medallist Bajrang Punia said a medal has been snatched away from Vinesh.
"I believe your medal was snatched away in this darkness. You are shining like a diamond in the whole world today," Punia, who led a long sit-in protest along with Vinesh and Sakshi Malik accusing former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh of sexually harassing women grapplers, posted on 'X'.
"World champion pride of Hindustan, Rustam-e-Hind Vinesh Phogat, you are the Kohinoor of the country. It's Vinesh Phogat all over the world. Those who want medals, can buy them for Rs 15 each," he wrote with a picture of Vinesh wearing several medals.
The 29-year-old Vinesh was disqualified on the morning of the women's 50kg freestyle final last week.
In her appeal, Vinesh had demanded that she be given a joint silver with Cuban wrestler Yusneylis Guzman Lopez, who lost to her in the semifinals but was promoted to the summit clash following the Indian's disqualification.
The gold was claimed by American Sarah Ann Hildebrandt.
A decision on Vinesh's appeal was postponed three times. Despite extending the deadline till August 16 to announce the verdict, the decision against the star grappler came out Wednesday evening and it was a terse one-line statement.
"It is a sad news but what can we say. A sportsperson works extremely hard and if something like this happens with anyone, it hurts. For us, Vinesh is a star, will always be," said hockey player Jarmanpreet Singh.
His team-mate Amit Rohidas said "the whole of India is with her".
"She should held her head high. She is a champion for us and the country."
National wrestling coach Virendra Dahiya termed the CAS decision "unfortunate".
"It is very unfortunate and a jolt for us. We were very hopeful that the decision would be in our favour. But it is unfortunate for Indian wrestling and the country," he said.
Indian Olympic Association President PT Usha had also expressed "shock and disappointment" at the turn of events.
The body also lashed out at the "inhumane regulations" of the United World Wrestling (UWW) that fail to consider the "physiological and psychological stresses faced by athletes".
The IOA had roped in senior counsels Harish Salve and Vidushpat Singhania to help Vinesh in her case.
"The decision of the CAS was really disappointing. We were very hopeful, Vinesh worked hard the most. After the timeline was extended, we thought the arbitrator Madam was having a thought and that decision could be in our favour. But it was dismissed with a one line statement," Singhania said.
"We have to wait for the detailed order, we have to see what is written there and accordingly will take a decision regarding future course of action."
Asked what was the argument on the part of Vinesh, he said, "The UWW (wrestling world governing body) had argued that rules are rules and if it (weight category) is 50kg, you are allowed only 50kg and nothing above that.
"Our plea was on a different line that you have to see the human right aspect, there is ambiguity in the rules, no clarity on the rules. But it seems our plea has been rejected and why it was rejected will be known only when the detailed order comes."
Vinesh is expected to return home on Saturday.
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.
