Para-shuttlers challenge Para Asian Games non-selection in Delhi HC

The petition challenges the athletes’ exclusion from India’s contingent for the Asian Para Games in Aichi-Nagoya, Japan. The para-shuttlers say the selection process did not follow the Sports Ministry’s stated merit requirements. They argue that their rankings and medal records qualified them for selection.

Chirag Baretha filed the petition with Shashank Kumar, Ammu Mohan and Manisha Patel. The respondents are the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Paralympic Committee of India, Badminton Association of India and Sports Authority of India. The petition specifically disputes how the final list was prepared.

The case matters because the Games begin on October 18, while the athletes are trying to preserve their chance to represent India. Baretha says he was ranked World No. 6 in his category and had won medals at earlier major events. BAI says it received the list from SAI and followed it, leaving the court challenge to determine what happens next.

The Asian Para Games are a major continental competition where para-athletes represent their countries across several sports. The source identifies the upcoming edition as taking place in Aichi-Nagoya, Japan, from October 18. It does not provide a formal definition of the Games, so this explanation uses established sporting knowledge.

For an athlete, selection means inclusion in India’s official contingent and the opportunity to compete in events such as para-badminton. Exclusion means losing that opportunity. It can also prevent the athlete from defending a previous medal or pursuing a new one on an international stage.

That consequence is central to Baretha’s complaint. He is a two-time Asian Games medallist, with silver in 2023 and bronze in 2018, but says he was removed from the team despite meeting the stated criteria. The dispute matters because the Games are approaching, leaving little time for athletes to secure a place through legal action.

Baretha’s case rests on both ranking and results. He says he was World No. 6 in the SL3-SU5 category on July 14, 2026, when rankings were used for Asian Para Games selection. He also points to five major medals across the Asian Games and para-badminton championships.

His Asian Games record includes silver in 2023 and bronze in 2018. He then won bronze at the 2024 BWF Para Badminton World Championships, the 2025 Asian Para Badminton Championships and the 2026 World Para Badminton Championships. The article presents these results as evidence of sustained international performance.

Baretha says the ranking itself met the selection requirement. He also argues that his earlier Asian Games medal gave him another route to qualification. He compares his situation with Suhas Lalinakere Yathiraj, who was reportedly not in the top six but had won gold at the previous Games. Baretha says his exclusion therefore undermined both ranking and medal-based grounds.

The petitioners say the selection rule required athletes to be ranked within Asia’s top six. They argue that this was a clear, measurable standard and that their rankings on the relevant date should have secured selection. The rule matters because it was presented as a merit-based pathway rather than a discretionary choice.

The rankings considered for the Games were taken on July 14, 2026. Baretha and Mandeep Kaur were ranked World No. 6 in the SL3-SU5 category at that point. Baretha therefore says he satisfied the top-six requirement. He also says he qualified under another clause because he had won a medal at the previous Games.

The dispute is over whether that qualification was properly applied to the final team. Baretha says he followed SAI’s guidelines and was removed anyway. BAI chairman K Prabhakar Rao says BAI did not select or exclude athletes, but received a list from SAI and followed it. The court challenge contests how that list reflected the stated criteria.

The men’s doubles dispute mattered because a player’s entry affects both the draw and the athlete’s ability to compete. Rakesh Pandey was selected to partner Umesh Vikram Kumar, although the article says Vikram objected that he had not consented. The issue raised questions about whether the entry followed BAI’s own email requirement.

BAI had told athletes that both partners needed to send separate emails naming each other. Vikram wrote that his name had appeared in the doubles draw without approval and asked for removal without affecting his singles entry. Officials replied that no modification was possible at that stage because the draw process had advanced.

The rules created a severe consequence. If Vikram withdrew from one discipline, he would withdraw from the entire tournament. He warned that Pandey could instead play with Hardik Makkar. Because the draw was not changed, the dispute affected Vikram’s choices, Pandey’s partnership and potentially the composition of India’s events.

The article describes several bodies involved in the selection dispute, but does not provide a complete formal division of their duties. The Sports Ministry set the selection criteria, including the requirement cited by petitioners to rank among Asia’s top six. Its ministry is named as MYAS in the court petition.

SAI appears to have played the operational role of compiling or providing the final list. BAI chairman K Prabhakar Rao said BAI did not include or exclude athletes by its own choice, but received the list from SAI and followed it. BAI also handled para-badminton communications about partner nominations and the doubles entry process.

PCI and the Sports Ministry were named alongside BAI and SAI as respondents, showing that the athletes challenge the wider selection process, not only one association. The article does not explain PCI’s specific decision-making role here. The High Court petition seeks to address the alleged mismatch between the criteria and the final contingent.

Para-badminton classification groups athletes according to how an eligible impairment affects their ability to perform the sport. SL classes generally refer to athletes with lower-limb impairment, while SU classes generally refer to athletes with upper-limb impairment. The number indicates the sport class, with different levels of functional impact.

SL3 is used for athletes with more significant lower-limb limitations, while SU5 is used for athletes with upper-limb impairment. These labels are not simply medical diagnoses. Classifiers assess sporting function, such as movement, balance, reach and stroke performance, so athletes with comparable competitive abilities can compete together.

The article mentions Baretha and Mandeep Kaur in the SL3-SU5 category, and also describes mixed events using that combination. Separate classes help reduce the advantage created by differences in impairment. The source does not explain the classification system itself, so these definitions use established para-sport knowledge. Exact eligibility and class decisions are made through formal classification procedures.