Delhi High Court clears Taekwondo athlete Kashish Malik for 2026 Asian Games

The order added, “During the hearing of the writ petition, it was specifically brought to its notice that respondent no. 4, India Taekwondo, the Member National Association affiliated to the Asian Taekwondo Union and the body responsible for recommending athletes for participation in the Asian Games, had itself forwarded and recommended the name of Kashish Malik for participation in the Women’s Under-57 kg event vide communication dated July 23, 2026.”

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heard the matter over the Asian Games slot dispute.

Two athletes, one slot

The dispute concerns India’s nomination for the women’s Under-57 kg Taekwondo event at the 2026 Asian Games. Kashish Malik had secured third place in the qualifying Senior Asian Taekwondo Championship in the -53 kg category, while Aranaya Thakur secured ninth place in the qualifying Senior Asian Taekwondo Championship.

The order dated June 23 passed by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports rejected the candidature of Kashish Malik. Following this, Malik filed a petition before the Delhi High Court challenging her rejection.

On July 1, the court, in its judgment, ruled in Kashish’s favour. Aranaya, who was one of the respondents in the petition, subsequently filed a review petition. She argued that the judgment prejudicially affected her competing claim for nomination to the said event, and was rendered without affording her an effective opportunity of hearing.

Advocate Suveer Sheokand and Shafik Ahmed appearing for Aranaya Thakur submitted that the judgment under review had adversely affected her competing claim for the Women‟s Under-57 kg slot, despite her having secured a Gold Medal in the Open Selection Trials in the very same category, as against Bronze secured by Kashish Malik. 

The counsel argued that Thakur’s claim based on her superior performance, ranking and the relaxation clause under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports’ selection criteria was not considered, and that the judgment, having the effect of favouring one athlete for the only available slot, could not have been rendered without affording Thakur an effective opportunity of hearing. 

Advocate Saurabh Jain, appearing for Kashish Malik opposing the review petition, argued that the judgment passed on July 1 was well-reasoned, after considering the entire record and the stand taken by all the parties. It is also contended that Thakur had secured the 9th position in the qualifying Senior Asian Taekwondo Championship and, therefore, did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for selection. 

It was argued that, in contrast, Kashish Malik, having secured a Bronze Medal in the said Championship, was the only athlete who fulfilled the prescribed criterion and was, therefore, entitled to be recommended for nomination.  It was further submitted that Thakur had no vested right to have her name recommended or forwarded for nomination merely based on her own sporting credentials. 

The counsel also pointed out that the respondent authorities themselves had categorically stated before this court that if Kashish Malik’s name was not forwarded, no other athlete’s name would be sent for the said event. It was, therefore, contended that no error apparent on the face of the record was made out and the review petition deserved to be dismissed. 

Review petition dismissed 

The court opined that the review petition can be entertained only in limited circumstances, such as where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, could not be produced earlier, or any other sufficient reason recognised in law. It held that merely because another view is possible, or because a party seeks a reconsideration of the merits, is no ground to invoke the review jurisdiction. 

The court observed that Aranaya Thakur was seeking a fresh adjudication of her own competing claim by asking the court to compare her merits with those of Kashish Malik. However, the court observed that such a comparison neither arose for consideration in the writ petition nor can it be undertaken in review jurisdiction. The court said that a review petition cannot be converted into proceedings to decide a controversy that was not the subject matter of the original judgment.