Trigger warning: This article contains details of gender-based violence and familial murder.
Update – 26 July 2025
Two weeks after the murder of national-level tennis player Radhika Yadav, new developments have emerged in the case. Her father, Deepak Yadav, accused of shooting her at their family home, has been remanded to 14-day judicial custody. The court has scheduled the next hearing for 8 August.
The case has taken a significant turn following the release of the autopsy report, which found that Radhika had sustained gunshot wounds to the chest, with no exit wounds. This contradicts the father’s earlier claim that he shot her in the back while she was turned away, casting doubt on his version of events and potentially altering the direction of the investigation.
Deepak Yadav has reportedly admitted to the killing and, according to family members, expressed remorse, stating he “should be hanged” for what he did.
Investigators have also clarified that Radhika was not running a formal tennis academy, as initially suggested, but had been independently training students using public courts – a point of tension between her and her father.
12 July 2025 – Indian tennis player and coach Radhika Yadav was shot dead by her father, Deepak Yadav, at their home in Gurugram on Thursday morning.
The 25-year-old, who had played on the ITF circuit and was running a tennis academy in the city, died of bullet wounds after reportedly refusing to give up her coaching work, something her father had objected to for months.
According to the police, Deepak shot her three times while she was cooking. He had a licensed revolver. Her uncle, who lived downstairs, rushed her to hospital but she was declared dead on arrival. The motive, as per Deepak’s own admission to police, was rooted in resentment. Not jealousy of a professional rival, or fallout from a private disagreement. His daughter was earning well, and people in his village were mocking him for it. It was his daughter’s success, and his failure to cope with it, that led him to kill her.
Statements from officers on the case pointed to the fact that Deepak reportedly felt emasculated by his daughter’s financial independence. Locals, police say, would taunt him for being dependent on her income. It’s alleged he asked her multiple times to shut down her academy. She refused. That, it seems, was enough for him to decide her life should end.
There’s no indication that the family was in financial distress. Deepak had his own income from renting properties. Yet, his discomfort came not from any material lack, but from his position in a society that devalues women’s success when it overshadows male authority.
Radhika had represented India internationally. She reached a career-best ranking of 75 in the Girls Under-18 category and was ranked in both singles and doubles in the Women’s ITF circuit. After her playing career, she shifted to coaching. Her academy had grown and she had reportedly taken on high-profile clients. She was, by any measure, succeeding.
Some local and regional reports have tried to centre the crime around external pressures, like neighbours’ remarks or societal expectations. The language used by law enforcement in these cases matters. Repeating the killer’s rationale about being taunted or mocked risks reinforcing the idea that such motives are somehow understandable. They are not. They are violent, misogynistic reactions to a woman refusing to shrink herself to preserve a man’s sense of power.
Her death is not just a personal tragedy; it’s also a political one. Women’s economic independence is often held up as a benchmark of progress. But stories like this show how fragile that progress can be when it threatens male control. Radhika had achieved more than most young athletes manage. She was building something meaningful. And yet she was killed because her father could not bear to see her thrive without needing him.
Radhika’s name now joins a growing list of women who were killed by men who could not stand their autonomy. In many of these cases, the men are not strangers, but family. The home, still too often, is the place where women are least safe.
As the investigation continues, there will be court proceedings, legal arguments, possibly even attempts at justifying what happened. But no explanation can make sense of this. A young woman was murdered in her own kitchen because she insisted on being more than a daughter, because she insisted on being herself.
