A New Delhi court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on 3 August 2026 in the sexual harassment case brought by five women wrestlers who accused the former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief of groping and demanding sexual favours. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ashwini Panwar of the Rouse Avenue Court delivered the verdict, acquitting Singh after the prosecution failed to prove the charges against him. Vinod Tomar, an aide to Singh, was also acquitted in the same case. (Firstpost, The Hindu)

The court reached its acquittal verdict after finding inconsistencies in witness statements and contradictions on major issues. Singh, a 69-year-old former member of parliament from India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was formally charged in 2024. He had denied the allegations throughout. (Al Jazeera)

The case originated in accusations from five women wrestlers who alleged that Singh groped them and demanded sexual favours during his tenure as WFI president. The charges formalised in 2024 followed months of sustained public pressure from India's wrestling community.

The allegations triggered weeks of protests in 2023, led by prominent female wrestlers including Vinesh Phogat and Sakshi Malik, who demanded Singh's removal as WFI head. The protests drew international attention to the treatment of women athletes in Indian sport. In December 2023, the fallout intensified: Olympic wrestler Bajrang Punia returned one of India's highest civilian awards in protest at Singh's WFI appointment, and Sakshi Malik announced her retirement from the sport for the same reason. (Al Jazeera)

The wrestlers have indicated they will not accept the verdict as final. The female wrestlers leading the case against Singh instructed their lawyer to appeal, with Vinesh Phogat stating the process would begin as soon as possible. (Al Jazeera)

The acquittal closes the trial court chapter of a dispute that convulsed Indian wrestling for nearly three years, but the promised appeal ensures the legal and political contours of the case remain unresolved. The Rouse Avenue Court's reasoning, centred on inconsistencies and contradictions in witness testimony, will face scrutiny at the appellate level, where higher courts can reassess both the evidentiary record and the trial court's interpretation of it.

The broader context here involves the intersection of sport governance, political patronage, and athlete activism in India. Singh's position as a BJP parliamentarian and WFI president placed him at the nexus of sporting authority and political power, a dynamic the protesting wrestlers explicitly invoked when they framed their demands as not merely personal grievances but a structural challenge to how Indian sport is administered. The acquittal, coming after the prosecution failed to meet the evidentiary threshold, raises questions about the gap between public protest and courtroom outcomes in cases involving powerful figures. The wrestlers' decision to appeal signals that their campaign, which already extracted significant concessions including Singh's removal from the WFI, will continue through the judicial system rather than through the streets.

For the wrestling community, the verdict arrives after a period of deep disruption. The sport saw medal-winning athletes retire, return honours, and stage public demonstrations, and the institutional fallout included changes to WFI leadership. The appellate process will determine whether the trial court's assessment of the evidence withstands judicial review or whether the higher courts find grounds to overturn the acquittal. Until then, the case that galvanized Indian sport enters its next legal phase.