3 min readApr 15, 2026 06:24 AM IST First published on: Apr 15, 2026 at 06:24 AM ISTIn 2018, when Virat Kohli’s name came up for discussion for the Khel Ratna award, the selection panel found itself in a unique predicament. Even by his lofty standards, that had been a phenomenal year for Kohli — scoring 2,735 runs across all formats, smashing 11 centuries. But on the Khel Ratna scoreboard — where athletes, as per rules, were marked for achievements in Olympics, world championships, Asian and Commonwealth Games — Kohli scored a big zero. Eventually, it was through a show of hands among panellists that he was conferred India’s highest sporting honour.The episode raised questions about the system’s integrity, which resurfaced on Monday. In December, the names of recommended Arjuna awardees were informally circulated. Months of silence followed. Now, the sports ministry has put that list on hold, citing the need to “re-evaluate” the selections because the number, 24, is seen as excessive. As per rules, there can be a maximum of 15 awardees in a year, with exceptions requiring the sports minister’s approval. A committee that included accomplished former athletes like Aparna Popat, Jhulan Goswami, Gagan Narang and M M Somaya effectively had its judgement questioned after nominating a couple dozen athletes from a list of hundreds. To be fair, the ministry’s concern is not entirely misplaced. A long list risks diluting exclusivity. But the awards’ credibility has been eroded over years of inconsistent decisions, unclear criteria, and a process that appears vulnerable to influence.AdvertisementIn 2021, when Neeraj Chopra won the historic Olympic gold, the decision to confer the same top honour on 11 others diluted the singularity of that achievement (according to the rules, there can be one Khel Ratna in a calendar year; in exceptional cases, the sports minister’s approval is needed). The ministry argued that the awards were being democratised. More recently, the omission of Manu Bhaker in the initial list of recommendations, despite a landmark multi-medal Olympic performance, reinforced the perception that the process is opaque. These episodes point to a structural flaw. The awards rely on a system where athletes must apply or be recommended by federations and state governments, creating an uneven playing field where visibility, access, and influence can matter as much as performance. The criteria offer limited clarity. Terms such as “most outstanding performance” for the Khel Ratna or “good performances over four years combined with qualities of leadership, sportsmanship and a sense of discipline” for the Arjuna Awards leave room for wide interpretation. Lobbying is an almost inevitable consequence. The result is a credibility gap that affects even deserving winners.Yet, the significance of these honours for athletes remains profound. Beyond the medal, citation, and prize money, they represent validation — a formal acknowledgement of years of effort and sacrifice. When that is delayed, questioned, or inconsistently awarded, it sends a troubling message. What is needed to restore credibility is a transparent, consistent framework — one that reduces discretion, clearly defines eligibility, and insulates the process from last-minute reversals. Selection committees must be empowered, and the system must move towards proactive identification of merit. Until such changes are made, the Khel Ratna and Arjuna Awards will continue to face questions.The writer is deputy associate editor, The Indian Express. mihir.vasavda@expressindia.com