On Article 5.7 charge concerning retirement and return to competition: “This is a strict, non-delegable personal obligation. However, the critical legal question is whether Ms. Phogat ever formally retired within the meaning of Article 5.7 in the first place. If no formal retirement notification was given to UWW and WADA, the six-month return notice requirement may not have been triggered at all — though the corresponding whereabouts obligations under the Registered Testing Pool (RTP) would have continued uninterrupted regardless.”On the dual weight category charge arising from the March 2024 selection trials: “This charge raises a significant due process question — namely, whether an athlete can be held solely responsible for a procedural irregularity that was permitted and facilitated by the officiating officials and the Ad-hoc Committee itself on the day. The doctrine of contributory institutional fault is a recognised principle in sports disciplinary jurisprudence.”On the Paris 2024 disqualification charge: The CAS Ad hoc Division has already rendered a final reasoned Award in CAS OG 24/17. The extent to which a national federation can impose additional disciplinary consequences for conduct already adjudicated with finality by the highest sports tribunal is a legally contested question engaging principles analogous to double jeopardy in sports law.”“Above all, Ms. Phogat’s right to a fair hearing before the WFI disciplinary committee, with full disclosure of all materials relied upon and representation of her choice, is non-negotiable under both natural justice principles and the WFI constitution itself.”