Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the court was not issuing a formal notice at this stage and directed WFI's counsel to obtain instructions on the matter. The case will next be heard on September 29.
Phogat has challenged show-cause notices dated May 9 and June 17, alleging that they are part of a continuing and arbitrary exercise of disciplinary powers by the federation. She has alleged that the action was discriminatory and mala fide and adversely affected her return to competitive wrestling following maternity.
According to her petition, the International Testing Agency (ITA), in a communication dated July 3, 2025, confirmed that she would be eligible to compete from January 1, 2026. Phogat has claimed that despite fulfilling the requirements for her return to competition, WFI subsequently introduced an eligibility framework that effectively prevented her from entering the selection process.
She has argued that the first show-cause notice is legally unsustainable, alleging that it relies on the superseded UWW Anti-Doping Rules, 2015 and refers to a "Rule 56" that, according to her, does not exist.
Phogat has also contended that the alleged whereabouts violation does not establish the essential elements required for an Article 2.4 violation under the World Anti-Doping Code.
The first notice also relates to her participation in two weight categories during the March 2024 Selection Trials. Phogat has maintained that her participation in both categories had been expressly authorised by the WFI's Ad-Hoc Committee.
The dispute over the first show-cause notice had earlier reached the Delhi High Court. Phogat has submitted that the Division Bench had made significant prima facie observations about the nature of the notice and the manner in which WFI had proceeded against her. She was subsequently allowed to participate in the Asian Games Selection Trials.
The petition further alleges that while the earlier proceedings were pending, WFI changed its selection framework by recognising a tournament in Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, as an additional qualifying event.
Phogat claims the change was made despite WFI having told the Supreme Court that there was a fixed pool of qualified wrestlers. She has alleged that the alteration was not brought to the Supreme Court's notice during the hearing on May 29.
Phogat subsequently took part in the Selection Trials on May 30, where she raised objections over the manner in which the selection process, including the draw, was conducted.
The second show-cause notice, dated June 17, was issued shortly afterwards and related to her conduct during the Selection Trials.
Phogat has described the allegations in the second notice as vague and lacking sufficient particulars. In her detailed response dated June 30, she explained the circumstances surrounding the incidents cited against her and referred to similar instances involving other wrestlers at the same trials.
She has relied on those instances to allege that WFI's disciplinary standards were being applied selectively against her.
The petition has also questioned the constitution and authority of the WFI Disciplinary Committee.
Phogat claims that despite repeatedly seeking details, the federation initially failed to disclose the committee's composition. According to her, the purported composition of the committee was uploaded on WFI's website only on July 30, after she had raised objections.
She has further alleged that the composition was not recorded in any formal order, resolution or other document carrying the federation's date, signature or letterhead.
Phogat has therefore questioned the legal authority under which the committee was constituted and alleged that WFI has not provided material establishing when, or pursuant to what decision, the committee came into existence.
The High Court's decision to seek WFI's stand is expected to bring greater clarity to the federation's position on the show-cause notices and the disciplinary proceedings challenged by the Olympic wrestler.
