New Delhi, Sep 28 (IANS): A Delhi court on Monday issued notice to former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) President Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on an appeal filed by four women wrestlers challenging his acquittal in the alleged sexual harassment and intimidation case.
The Rouse Avenue Court’s sessions court also issued notice to former WFI Assistant Secretary Vinod Tomar, whose acquittal has also been challenged by the wrestlers, and sought responses from both Singh and Tomar by October 9.
The appeal has been filed against the August 3 judgment of the trial court, which acquitted Singh and Tomar after holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against them beyond a reasonable doubt.
In their appeal, the four women wrestlers have contended that the trial court’s judgment is not sustainable in law and that the evidence on record was assessed incorrectly.
The appeal also seeks to overturn Tomar’s acquittal in relation to the allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 506 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) made by one of the complainants.
The matter was earlier listed before the Rouse Avenue Courts on September 26, but could not be taken up due to the unavailability of Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh. The matter was subsequently adjourned.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ashwini Panwar of the Rouse Avenue Courts had, on August 3, acquitted Brij Bhushan and Tomar, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against them beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case dates back to January 2023, when several wrestlers, including Olympians Vinesh Phogat, Sakshi Malik and Bajrang Punia, launched a protest at Jantar Mantar, accusing Brij Bhushan of sexual harassment and intimidation.
The wrestlers had demanded Brij Bhushan’s resignation as WFI chief and sought the dissolution of the federation.
Following a complaint to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) President P.T. Usha, an enquiry committee comprising eminent sportspersons, including Mary Kom and Yogeshwar Dutt, was constituted. However, the WFI denied the allegations against its then president and coaches.
The Union Sports Ministry subsequently suspended the functioning of the WFI and sidelined then Assistant Secretary Vinod Tomar amid the controversy.
The criminal proceedings gathered pace in May 2024, when the Rouse Avenue Court framed charges against Brij Bhushan and Vinod Tomar. The trial court had found sufficient material to proceed against the former WFI chief on charges relating to sexual harassment and outraging the modesty of five women wrestlers.
Brij Bhushan had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, maintaining that he was innocent. During the pendency of the trial, he had also approached the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, chargesheet and criminal proceedings.
The present case is distinct from the separate POCSO case lodged by a minor wrestler against Brij Bhushan. In May 2025, a Delhi court accepted the Delhi Police’s cancellation report in that case after the probe agency said it found no corroborative evidence to support the allegations. The complainant and her father had not opposed the cancellation report.
Following Brij Bhushan’s acquittal, wrestler Vinesh Phogat and Tokyo Olympic bronze medallist Bajrang Punia had expressed disappointment with the verdict and said that the women wrestlers would challenge the decision in a higher court.
In a statement released on the social media platform ‘X’, they had said that the legal battle was far from over and that their legal team had been instructed to file an appeal.
Meanwhile, Brij Bhushan had welcomed the acquittal and described it as a “victory of the junior players”.
Speaking to IANS after the verdict, Singh had said, “This is not my victory. This is the victory of junior players. The junior players have won. And this case has proved that even Olympians and Olympic medal winners can lie for their own interests.”
Earlier, he had described the verdict as a “moment of happiness” for him and his supporters and said that he would have accepted the court’s decision even if he had been found guilty.
