On 10th October, 2024, the Draft National Sports Governance Bill, 2024 was placed in public domain for inviting suggestions from stakeholders as a part of the pre-legislative -consultation process. The objective of the proposed bill is to provide for the development and promotion of sports, welfare measures for sportspersons as well as ethical practices. It also aims to establish institutional capacity and prudent standards for the governance of sports federations based on international best practices.

The sports industry in India has been witnessing exponential growth over the past decade. From being a USD 743 million industry in 2013, it has grown to over USD 2 billion today with a post pandemic average annual growth of nearly 55%. While cricket dominates with over 85% share of the overall market, emerging and other sports have grown at an average annual rate of around 87% (post-pandemic), which is nearly double of cricket which grew at 44% during the same period. This data highlights a paradigm shift in the Indian sports landscape, marked by increased corporate confidence, diversified investments, and the introduction of franchise model across various sports which positions India on the path to becoming a multi-sport nation. Aside from monetary growth, sport is a formidable component in our society which evokes sentiment and passion. Indian sportspersons, whilst being worshipped are not immune from public scrutiny, be it on the basis of performance or for their conduct on and off the field.

Given the stature of sport in India and the increasing stakeholders, a regulation to promote, develop and govern sports and its stakeholders is a step in the right direction. That said, the text of the draft bill leaves much to be desired and it is hard to overlook some infirmities which stand to defeat the very object of their proposed enactment. The definition of ‘sportsperson’ (Clause 2(cc)) refers to someone who participates in a sport. This may require to be streamlined since the term ‘participation’ may be open to interpretation to include persons who may actually not be actively playing such as support staff, coaches, managers etc. In Chapter II, the requirement of setting up an Ethics Commission has been made mandatory for the National Olympic Committee (NOC) with the use of the term ‘shall’ whilst it is discretionary for the National Paralympic Committee (NPC) which uses the term ‘may’. Clause 6 states that there shall be a National Sports Federation (NSF) for each sport designated by the Sports Regulatory Body of India (SRBI). However, neither does the draft define the term sport nor does it enlist the existing designated sports in India. Further, it does not specify the procedure for applying for the recognition of a sport or NSF and states that the same will be prescribed by the SRBI. One will have to wait for clarity in this aspect. The applications by national associations managing emerging sports such as Padel and Pickleball have been long pending and India shouldn’t fall behind the curve for want of clarity on this front.

Chapter IV is dedicated to the powers and functions of the SRBI which shall be responsible for regulating the governance of the NOC, NPC, NSF’s with the objective of ensuring transparency and accountability in the management and administration of sports in India. SRBI shall also ensure the protection of ‘athletes’ and ‘support personnel’ - both terms being undefined in the draft bill. This may likely cause confusion and may even conflict with the widely worded definition given to the term ‘sportsperson’ in the draft. The SRBI is further tasked with prescribing a code of ethics for the recognized bodies and “others within their circle of influence”. This phrase requires clarity as it is highly subjective and may lead to several disputes involving its interpretation.

The draft also lays down the eligibility criteria for members of the NOC Ethics and Dispute Resolution Commission by inter-alia stating that there be 4 members with a legal background. The term ‘legal background’ is vague and the draftspersons would do well make it more specific by adding a certain level of experience in sports management or dispute resolution.

Lastly, from a legal standpoint, there are several concerns with the jurisdiction of the Appellate Sports Tribunal (AST) - whilst it is premised a body to hear appeals from decisions of the Ethics and Dispute Resolution Commissions, it is also vested with original jurisdiction as all pending cases before High Court and District Courts covered under the subject matter of the Bill are required to be transferred to the AST (Clause 29). Surprisingly, orders of the AST are only challengeable before the Supreme Court (Clause 32) on grounds specified under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure - which is actually a provision for second appeals. This may lead to an anomaly in cases where AST orders in matters transferred from civil courts exercising original jurisdiction will not have the benefit of a first appeal (Section 96 of the CPC) and will by-pass straight to a second appeal. This ought to be clarified, else it may be a subject matter of a constitutional challenge.

Another interesting observation is under Clause 27 which speaks of exclusion of jurisdiction of the AST for matters arising during tournaments organized by International Federations and those falling under the Anti-Doping Act, 2022. While the draft specifies what cannot be heard by the AST but fails to specify what can be heard. Unlike our constitutional courts which have plenary jurisdiction, it is always prudent for a Tribunal constituted under a statute to be conferred jurisdiction of what it can hear rather than leaving it to the Tribunal to decide on the extent of its jurisdiction. The loophole may lead to several delays in decision making due to jurisdictional challenges defeating the very purpose of the enactment.

The penal offences under the draft bill find a mention under Clause 37(4) which state any any violation of the provisions of the Bill would be punishable with imprisonment of 6 months extendable upto one year with a fine. Interestingly, the first 3 sub-clauses under 37 only refer to the bar on unrecognized sports organizations from using the expression “India”, “Indian” or “National” whereas 37(4) covers violations of all provisions of the Bill. There should either be a separate chapter/section dealing with offences under the bill or the current text under Clause 37(4) should be amended to restrict itself to violations of the first three sub-clauses of 37 itself.

The Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports have exercised good prudence by inviting suggestions on the draft bill. One can only hope that some of its blemishes are revisited. After all, a sport is about doing the right thing, the right way.

By - Arush Khanna