The National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 23, 2025.  This note provides an overview of key provisions of the Bill, and discusses certain issues with the Bill.  

Currently, the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 guides the governance practices in national sports federations.[1]  This Code has been formulated by the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.  The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development (2014) had observed that most of the national sports federations are dominated by non-sportspersons.[2]  It noted issues of mis-governance, wrongful selection, and lack of transparency in election.  It highlighted the need for bringing reforms in the structure and composition of national sports federations, holding their elections, and grievance redressal. 

In recent years, multiple national sports federations have faced sanctions from respective international federations for governance-related issues.  For instance, the Wrestling Federation of India was suspended in 2023 for failing to hold timely elections.[3]  The Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India also faced suspension in 2024 for not having an elected body.[4]  It was being run by a High Court-appointed Committee of Administrators since 2019.  Similarly, in 2022, FIFA suspended All India Football Federation for being run by a Court-appointed Committee of Administrators.[5]  FIFA adjudged this to be undue influence from third parties and a violation of its statutes.

Key Features

• National Sports Governing Bodies: The Bill provides for establishing: (i) National Olympic Committee, (ii) National Paralympic Committee, and (iii) National and Regional Sports Federations for each designated sport.  The national bodies will have affiliation with respective international bodies.  These bodies will also have affiliate units at state and district levels.  The Bill requires these bodies to establish: (i) certain committees for their functioning, (ii) a code of ethics to govern conduct of persons such as members, affiliates, athletes, coaches, and sponsors, and (iii) a grievance redressal mechanism for complaints from such persons.  The Bill states that the international charters and statutes will primarily govern these bodies.  In the event of a conflict with the Bill, the central government may issue clarifications.

• Administrative structure of national bodies: Every national sports body will have a general body, consisting of equal number of representatives from each affiliate member and certain ex-officio members.  It will have an executive committee consisting of up to 15 members, with at least two outstanding sportspersons, two representatives of athletes committee, and four women.  The Bill specifies certain conditions for being a member of the executive committee.  These include: (i) the person must be aged between 25 years and 70 years, and (ii) must comply with international rules (charter, statute, or bye-laws of international federations) on age and term limits.  It also specifies that a person aged between 70 and 75 years may become a member if permitted by international rules, and will serve for a full-term.  Every national body will have a President, a Secretary General, and a Treasurer.  To be appointed on these positions, a person must be a sportsperson of outstanding merit or must have served as a member of the executive committee for at least two full terms.  A person in these positions cannot serve for more than three consecutive terms, in the same role or in combination.

• National Sports Board: The Bill empowers the central government to establish a National Sports Board (NSB).  NSB will grant recognition to the national sports bodies and register their affiliate units.  Only recognised bodies will be eligible to receive funds from the central government.  The Board may suspend or cancel such recognition or registration, subject to specified conditions.   Other functions of NSB include: (i) issuing guidelines on code of ethics and compliance with international rules, (ii) inquiring into matters affecting welfare of sportspersons, sports development, and misuse of funds, and (iii) creating ad-hoc administrative body in case of loss of international recognition of a national body.

NSB will consist of a chairperson, and a prescribed number of members.  To be appointed to NSB, a person must have special knowledge or experience in public administration, sports governance, sports law, and other related fields.  The central government will appoint the members of NSB on recommendations of a search-cum-selection committee.  The central government will prescribe the composition of the committee.

• National Sports Tribunal: The Bill provides for constituting a National Sports Tribunal to adjudicate sports related disputes.  The Tribunal will not have jurisdiction over specified disputes such as those in relation to games organised by international bodies and disputes exclusively under the jurisdiction of internal dispute resolution committee of national sports bodies.

The Tribunal will consist of: (i) a chairperson who is sitting or former Judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of a High Court, and (ii) two members who are persons of eminence with experience in sports, public administration, and law.  A search-cum-selection committee will recommend appointments to the Tribunal.  It will consist of: (i) the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by CJI, (ii) Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Justice, and (iii) Secretary to the Department of Sports.  The Tribunal will have powers of a civil court.  Appeals against its decisions will lie before the Supreme Court, unless international rules require appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.

• Oversight of elections: The central government will establish a national panel of electoral officers to oversee elections of national sports bodies.  Every national sports body must also constitute an electoral panel to oversee elections of its affiliates.

• Powers of the central government:  The central government may exempt a national body or its affiliates from any or all provisions of the Bill, if necessary, in public interest for promotion of that sport.

Issues to Consider

As per the Constitution, sports is under the State List, which means that only state assemblies may make laws on sports.[6]  Article 253 of the Constitution gives Parliament powers to make laws to implement any treaty, agreement, or convention, or any decision made at any international conference, association, or body.  This power applies regardless of whether a subject in the State List.  However, the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 does not seek to give effect to any such international treaty, agreement, or convention.

The Bill refers to the Olympic Charter and the Paralympic Charter in its long title.  These Charters are made by the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee, respectively.  These bodies are private non-governmental bodies.[7]^,[8]  Hence, it may be questioned whether Charters made by them are covered under the ground of “any decision made at any international conference, association, or body” in the Article 253 of the Constitution.  The Bill applies to designated sports specified by the central government.  Hence, it may also cover non-Olympic sports such as Chess, Kho Kho, Kabaddi, and eSports.  This raises a further question whether Parliament has powers to make laws for such sports.

Parliament has passed another law on sports, namely, the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022.[9]  This law aims to give effect to the UNSECO International Convention against Doping in Sport, to which India is a signatory.[10]

The Bill empowers the central government to establish a National Sports Board (NSB).  NSB will grant recognition to the national sports bodies and register their affiliate units.  Only recognised bodies will be eligible to receive funds from the central government.  The Board may suspend or cancel such recognition or registration, subject to specified conditions.   Other functions of NSB include: (i) issuing guidelines on code of ethics and compliance with international rules, (ii) inquiring into matters affecting welfare of sportspersons, sports development, and misuse of funds, and (iii) creating ad-hoc administrative body in case of loss of international recognition of a national body.  The need for the National Sports Board is unclear.

Sports played at an international level are governed by respective international organisations.  For instance, cricket is governed by the International Cricket Council, Olympic Games by the International Olympic Committee, and football by FIFA.  These bodies set rules for governance and recognition and de-recognition of national federations.  For instance, in 2022, FIFA suspended All India Football Federation (AIFF) on the ground of undue influence from third parties.5  It observed that suspension will be lifted only when a Committee of Administrators to assume powers of the AIFF Executive Committee has been repealed.  This Committee was appointed by the Supreme Court.[11]

The Bill states that in the event of any conflict with its provisions, the international charters will prevail.  This raises the question whether the regulation by the National Sports Board is redundant.  For instance, a national sports federation that is recognised by the National Sports Board and in compliance with it, may still be de-recognised by the corresponding international body if it fails to meet the international standards.  Such de-recognition could lead to denial of rights to host an international event or ban on Indian athletes from participating in such events.  Such consequences will be independently decided by the international organisation.

See Table 1 in annexure for a comparison of laws in the top 10 countries by medals in the Paris Olympics 2024.  Countries such as UK, Germany, and Netherlands do not have a law on sports governance.  USA, China, France, South Korea, and Italy provide for constitution of their National Olympic Committee under law.  None of these 10 countries have a statutory body similar to the proposed National Sports Board in India.  Certain requirements under the Bill may also exist in these countries through administrative frameworks and conditions for public funding.  For instance, in UK, compliance with code for sports governance (similar to the 2011 sports code in India) is mandatory for receiving public funding.[12]  This code in UK specifies term limit for office bearers.12

As discussed in the AIFF case above, international charters emphasise on independent functioning of the National Sports Federations.  Another example is the Olympic Charter which requires that the National Olympic Committees must preserve their autonomy.[13]  It includes shielding from political, legal, religious or economic pressures which may prevent from complying with the Olympic Charter.  The Bill grants the central government powers to issue directions to the Board or any other person or entity for efficient administration of the legislation.  The National Sports Board will issue certain guidelines to be adhered by the national sports federations and also conduct inquiries into their conduct in certain cases.   This raises the concern whether such powers with government bodies may be seen as curtailing the autonomy of national sports federations.  This may create the risk of sanctions by the respective international organisations.

The Bill constitutes the National Sports Tribunal to adjudicate over sports related disputes.  Appeals against its decisions will lie before the Supreme Court, unless international rules require appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.

Lack of clarity on jurisdiction of the National Sports Tribunal

The Bill establishes the National Sports Tribunal for adjudicating “sports-related disputes”.  It does not further specify which disputes will fall under its jurisdiction, except excluding certain disputes.  The term sports related disputes may be broad, and this may lead to litigation about the jurisdiction of the National Sports Tribunal.  For instance, it may be questioned whether a dispute regarding selection of an athlete will be heard by the Tribunal.  The TRAI Act, 1997 which establishes a similar Appellate Tribunal for the telecom sector, specifies a list of disputes which will be adjudicated by it.[14]

Composition of Selection Committee for the Tribunal may contradict the rulings of the Supreme Court

The Bill constitutes a Search-cum-Selection Committee for recommending appointments to the National Sports Tribunal.  The Committee consists of: (i) Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by CJI, (ii) Secretary to the Law and Justice Ministry, and (iii) Secretary to the Department of Sports.  The proposed composition may contradict the rulings of the Supreme Court on securing judicial independence of the Tribunals.

The Supreme Court (2019) had held that the independent functioning of Tribunals stands compromised where the Executive has the controlling authority in the selection process.[15]  It observed that independence of judiciary requires the judicial functioning be free from interference by the other two organs of the State.  It held that this principle applies to the traditional Courts as well as Tribunals since they are formed as an alternative to Courts and perform judicial functions.  It further noted that a lack of judicial dominance in the search-cum-selection committees is in direct contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers, and is an encroachment on the judicial domain.  Following this judgement, Parliament passed the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021.  The Act constitutes a search-cum-selection committee for recommending appointments to various Tribunals including TDSAT, NCLAT, and Securities Appellate Tribunal.[16]  The committee consists of four voting members, and one non-voting member.  Two of the voting members are judicial members, and the other two are members of the Executive.  The chairperson of the committee, who is a judicial member, has a casting vote in the event of a tie.  This structure ensures primacy of the judiciary in the selection process.