Pandemic-era relaxation does not automatically justify indefinite continuation

The challenged policy had roots in the Covid-19 period. The earlier relaxation allowed a broader range of sports achievements. The appellants argued for restoring the pre-2023 criteria. The Court examined whether the later change was fairly implemented. A temporary exceptional measure does not itself settle future policy. Authorities must assess the circumstances and consequences of continuation. The 2024 modification was found vitiated on the facts. The 2025 challenge was left open for properly constituted proceedings. Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others | 2026 INSC 26