Reforming the Rules of the Game: A Legal Analysis of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025

On 18th August 2025, the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 received the President’s assent and came into force as the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. This enactment marks a watershed moment in the legal and institutional framework of sports governance in India. For decades, sports administration in the country was primarily guided by executive instructions such as the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011, which, despite its utility, lacked statutory force. The absence of a comprehensive legislative mandate often led to opaque governance structures, prolonged disputes within federations, and limited accountability of sports administrators. The new Act seeks to remedy these deficiencies by introducing a binding legal regime that harmonises domestic governance with international standards, particularly those enshrined in the Olympic Charter and the Paralympic Charter.

The importance of this legislative development cannot be overstated. Sports federations and national governing bodies perform what the Supreme Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649 characterised as “public functions,” especially when dealing with national representation and utilisation of public resources. Yet, in the absence of a codified statute, these bodies were often left to self-regulate, resulting in allegations of arbitrariness, nepotism, and conflicts of interest. The 2025 Act, through its provisions, such as Section 3 (establishment of National Sports Bodies), Section 5 (constitution of the National Sports Board), and Section 17 (establishment of the National Sports Tribunal), seeks to provide a unified legal mechanism for recognition, regulation, and dispute resolution in the field of sports.

The timing of this reform also bears significant international relevance. India has expressed its intention to bid for hosting the Summer Olympic Games, 2036, and a credible governance framework was viewed as a prerequisite by international sporting bodies. The enactment of this legislation reflects India’s commitment to aligning its domestic practices with international best practices, thereby fostering transparency, accountability, and athlete welfare. Furthermore, by recognising sports bodies as “public authorities” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Section 15 of the Act), the legislation introduces a much-needed element of transparency into the financial and administrative dealings of such organisations.

Objectives of the Act

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 has been enacted with the primary objective of ensuring the promotion of sports, the welfare of athletes, and the establishment of a governance framework consistent with the constitutional mandate of transparency and accountability. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life with dignity, and in the context of sports, this includes the welfare and protection of athletes who dedicate their lives to representing the nation. The Act seeks to operationalise this right through statutory recognition of safe sporting environments under Section 13 (Safe Sports Policy), with specific emphasis on women and minors who often constitute vulnerable groups in the sporting ecosystem.

A central aim of the Act is to ensure transparency and accountability in the administration of sports bodies. Earlier, as seen in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that while bodies such as the BCCI were not “State” under Article 12, they nonetheless discharged public functions and were expected to act fairly. The Act gives legislative effect to this observation by classifying recognised sports bodies as public authorities under Section 15, thereby subjecting them to the Right to Information Act, 2005. This ensures public access to financial and administrative decisions, curbing arbitrariness in governance and promoting the use of public funds in a manner consistent with Article 14.

Another objective is to provide a unified mechanism for dispute resolution. Sports disputes in India have historically been fragmented, with matters ranging from selection controversies to election irregularities being litigated across High Courts. The establishment of the National Sports Tribunal under Section 17 remedies this inconsistency by creating a specialised adjudicatory body with expertise in sports law, whose orders are directly appealable to the Supreme Court under Section 25. This is in line with judicial pronouncements such as Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535, where the Court emphasised the necessity of institutional reforms to prevent factionalism and ensure fairness in governance.

Lastly, the Act aims to align India’s sports governance with international best practices. By mandating compliance with the Olympic Charter and Paralympic Charter, it balances the principle of autonomy of sporting bodies with the imperative of governmental oversight in the public interest. Thus, the Act does not merely regulate; it elevates sports governance into a legal regime that integrates constitutional values, international standards, and athlete-centric protections into one cohesive framework.

Institutional Framework under the Act

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 introduces a comprehensive institutional framework to regulate, supervise, and adjudicate matters in the sports sector. The three pillars of this framework are: the National Sports Bodies, the National Sports Board (NSB), and the National Sports Tribunal. Together, they ensure a balance between autonomy of sports organisations and public accountability, a principle repeatedly emphasised by the Supreme Court.

1. National Sports Bodies: Under Section 3, the Act mandates the establishment of the National Olympic Committee (NOC), the National Paralympic Committee (NPC), and for each designated sport, a National Sports Federation (NSF) and a Regional Sports Federation (RSF). These bodies are required to maintain international recognition and affiliation with the concerned international sports federation. Further, Section 4 prescribes structural compliance: every body must constitute a General Body, an Executive Committee (with at least two sportspersons of outstanding merit and four women members), an Athletes Committee, and an Ethics Committee. This statutory mandate strengthens the principle of equality under Article 14, ensuring representation of athletes and women who were historically sidelined in governance processes. The Supreme Court’s insistence on athlete representation in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535 is reflected in this legislative design.
2. National Sports Board (NSB): The Act establishes the National Sports Board under Section 5 as the apex regulatory authority. The Board is vested with powers under Section 6, including granting recognition to sports organisations, maintaining registers of recognised bodies, conducting inquiries, issuing guidelines on ethics, and framing the Safe Sports Policy (Section 13). It also has authority to constitute ad hoc administrative bodies (Section 11) where recognition is suspended or cancelled. Importantly, only organisations recognised by the Board are eligible for government grants under Section 14, reinforcing financial accountability. This is consistent with the constitutional scheme of responsible use of public funds under Article 266.
3. National Sports Tribunal: For adjudication, the Act creates the National Sports Tribunal under Section 17, comprising a Chairperson (a sitting or retired Supreme Court judge or High Court Chief Justice) and two eminent members. It possesses civil court powers under Section 24, ensuring judicial rigour in its proceedings. Its jurisdiction, however, excludes doping disputes (as governed by the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022) and matters reserved for the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Appeals lie directly to the Supreme Court under Section 25, expediting dispute resolution and reducing multiplicity of litigation across High Courts, a problem noted in cases such as Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649, where the Court highlighted gaps in regulatory oversight.

Governance Reforms under the Act

One of the central objectives of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 is to introduce far-reaching governance reforms in Indian sports administration. Historically, national sports federations operated with little oversight, resulting in entrenched interests, prolonged tenures, and opaque decision-making. The Act addresses these lacunae by laying down binding provisions on composition, tenure, ethics, and electoral accountability.

1. Inclusive Composition of Governing Bodies: Under Section 4(2), every recognised sports organisation must ensure adequate representation of stakeholders. The Executive Committee is capped at fifteen members, of which at least two must be “sportspersons of outstanding merit” and at least four must be women. In addition, an Athletes Committee, an Ethics Committee, and a Dispute Resolution Committee are mandated. This statutory framework reflects judicial reasoning in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535, where the Supreme Court underscored the need for athlete participation and independent oversight in governance structures. By embedding representation into the statutory framework, the Act operationalises Article 14, ensuring equality of opportunity in decision-making.
2. Age and Tenure Restrictions: The Act also imposes clear restrictions on age and tenure. As per Section 7, office bearers must be between 25 and 70 years, extendable to 75 only where international sporting regulations so permit. Additionally, the Act prescribes fixed terms with mandatory cooling-off periods to prevent concentration of power. These provisions respond to long-standing concerns, including those noted in the Lodha Committee Report (2016), which emphasised that unlimited tenure eroded institutional accountability.
3. Code of Ethics and Grievance Redressal: Under Section 12, all sports bodies must adopt a Code of Ethics consistent with international standards and the Olympic Charter. Coupled with this, Section 13 requires the establishment of an internal Grievance Redressal Mechanism. This ensures compliance with the broader constitutional guarantee of fair treatment under Article 21. Importantly, the Safe Sports Policy mandated under this section addresses concerns of harassment and abuse, providing a protective legal environment for women and minors.
4. National Sports Election Panel: Free and fair elections are secured by the establishment of a National Sports Election Panel under Section 16. Comprising retired election officials, the Panel supervises elections at national, state, and district levels. Its inclusion reflects the constitutional ethos of democratic functioning under Article 324, extending principles applicable to political democracy into the domain of sports governance.

Transparency and Accountability under the Act

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 places transparency and accountability at the heart of its legislative scheme. The regulation of sports bodies, many of which control access to public resources and represent the nation at international events, requires adherence to standards of financial discipline, openness, and responsibility. To this end, the Act introduces statutory obligations that reflect constitutional values of equality, fairness, and responsible use of public funds.

1. Recognition and Funding: Under Section 14, only those sports organisations recognised by the National Sports Board (NSB) are eligible for government grants, financial aid, or facilities. This ensures that public funds under Article 266 of the Constitution are channelled exclusively towards organisations functioning in compliance with the Act. It also prevents arbitrary disbursement of resources to non-compliant bodies, thereby reinforcing financial discipline.
2. Application of the RTI Act, 2005: Perhaps the most significant reform is contained in Section 15, which declares that recognised sports organisations receiving government aid shall be treated as “public authorities” under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This provision draws inspiration from the Supreme Court’s observations in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649, where although the BCCI was held not to be “State” under Article 12, the Court acknowledged its public functions. Later, in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535, the Court reiterated that sports bodies discharging public duties must be held accountable. By legislating transparency through RTI, the Act gives statutory effect to these judicial concerns. However, the BCCI has been provided limited exemption, in that it falls under RTI obligations only if substantial government funding is received.
3. Audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG): The Act also incorporates strict auditing requirements. Section 19 mandates that accounts of recognised bodies receiving government aid shall be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, with reports laid before Parliament. This provision directly aligns with Articles 149 and 151 of the Constitution, which empower the CAG to ensure that public money is not misapplied or misused. Such oversight ensures not only financial propriety but also parliamentary accountability, thereby bridging the gap between autonomy of federations and the need for public scrutiny.

Safe Sports and Athlete Protection under the Act

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 marks a paradigm shift in recognising the safety and dignity of athletes as integral to sports governance. Historically, instances of harassment, abuse, and neglect within federations were inadequately addressed due to absence of binding statutory mechanisms. The Act directly responds to this lacuna by mandating a Safe Sports Policy, thereby prioritising the welfare of athletes, particularly women, minors, and other vulnerable participants.

1. Safe Sports Policy: Under Section 13, the National Sports Board (NSB) is obligated to frame and enforce a Safe Sports Policy applicable to all recognised sports organisations. This policy must incorporate mechanisms to prevent sexual harassment, abuse of authority, and exploitation, ensuring compliance with the constitutional mandate of protection of life and dignity under Article 21. The provision aligns with the legislative intent of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, thereby integrating existing statutory safeguards into the sporting domain.
2. Grievance Redressal Mechanisms: Each recognised body is required under Section 12 to establish an independent Grievance Redressal Mechanism. This ensures prompt and fair handling of complaints by athletes against coaches, administrators, or fellow players. Judicial emphasis on institutional grievance redressal in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, where the Court laid down guidelines to protect women against sexual harassment at the workplace, is directly echoed in this statutory framework. The Act, in effect, transposes the Vishaka principles into the specialised context of sports administration.
3. Protection against Abuse of Authority: The Act recognises that power imbalances often place athletes in vulnerable positions. By mandating Ethics Committees and Dispute Resolution Committees under Section 4(3), the law provides institutional checks against arbitrary actions by office bearers. This provision resonates with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535, where unchecked authority within sports bodies was held to undermine fairness and integrity. The statutory embedding of checks and balances is therefore both corrective and preventive in nature.
4. International Alignment: The Safe Sports mandate also ensures conformity with the Olympic Charter and the International Safeguards for Children in Sport, reflecting India’s commitment to global standards. By integrating international norms into domestic law, the Act ensures that athlete welfare is not merely an administrative priority but a legal obligation enforceable in courts and tribunals.

Conclusion

The enactment of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 marks a decisive moment in the evolution of sports governance in India. By transforming what was once a loosely regulated arena under executive codes, such as the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011, into a binding statutory regime, the Act ensures that sports administration now operates within the framework of law rather than discretionary policy. This transition brings Indian sports governance in line with the constitutional vision of accountability under Articles 14 and 21, and the democratic principle of transparency embodied in the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Act’s significance lies in its holistic approach. Through Sections 3 to 6, it institutionalises the National Sports Bodies and the National Sports Board, ensuring representation of athletes and women, while embedding ethics and dispute redressal mechanisms into the very structure of federations. By establishing the National Sports Tribunal under Section 17, the legislation provides a specialised and expeditious mechanism for sports disputes, reducing dependence on fragmented judicial remedies across High Courts. This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s insistence in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535, that sports bodies must adopt reforms guaranteeing fairness and accountability.

Equally transformative are the Act’s provisions on transparency. By subjecting recognised federations to the RTI regime under Section 15, and mandating audits by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India under Section 19, the law ensures responsible utilisation of public funds consistent with Articles 149 and 266. The Safe Sports Policy under Section 13 elevates athlete protection into a statutory right, drawing from judicial safeguards against harassment as articulated in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.

At the same time, the Act carefully balances autonomy with sovereignty. Restrictions on the use of the term “India” and national symbols under Section 20, coupled with the Central Government’s power to issue directions in matters of foreign policy and national security under Section 22, reaffirm that sporting representation remains a sovereign function, harmonised with international obligations under Article 51(c).

Authored By: Ms. Aeshita Marwah