Is Indian sport finally getting its legal backbone? A critical analysis of the National Sports Governance Bill 2025

The introduction of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha marks an inflection point in the legal evolution of Indian sport. While India has over the decades produced athletes of global stature and hosted world-class events, the governance framework within which sport has functioned remains notoriously opaque, faction-ridden, and largely unregulated.

This Bill proposes a seismic shift. It seeks to introduce a statutory framework that governs how sport is administered, who gets to participate in decision-making, how disputes are resolved, and whether the rights of athletes and sportspersons are treated with the seriousness they deserve.

But does the Bill go far enough? And more importantly, will it actually change anything on the ground?

The timing of this Bill is not coincidental. India is making a concerted bid to host the 2036 Summer Olympics and, in doing so, must present a modern, transparent, and athlete-friendly sporting environment to the world. The legislative initiative also arrives in the wake of increasing public outrage over instances of sexual harassment, election rigging within federations, opaque selection policies, and a deep disconnect between athletes and those who govern them.

The existing legal structure, resting primarily on the National Sports Development Code of 2011, has been helpful as policy but lacks teeth as law. This Bill intends to change that reality by creating enforceable structures and legal remedies, while simultaneously attempting to balance the need for international compliance with domestic autonomy.

At its core, the Bill introduces a multi-tiered legal and administrative structure. It recognises the need for national governing bodies for sport, such as the National Olympic Committee, the National Paralympic Committee, and specific federations for each sport. All these bodies must maintain international affiliation, which serves both as a benchmark and as a quality control mechanism.

The National Sports Board is conceived as a supervisory authority with extensive powers. It can grant or cancel recognition, conduct inquiries into malpractices, and issue mandatory guidelines relating to ethics and athlete safety. Perhaps most significantly, it can enforce compliance with a Safe Sports Policy aimed at protecting women, minors, and other vulnerable individuals within the sports ecosystem.

Every recognised sports body must now include athletes of outstanding merit in its Executive Committee. They must also set up internal grievance mechanisms, ethics committees, and ensure gender representation. The structure of these bodies must comply not only with the statute but also with the standards of the Olympic Charter and other relevant international instruments.

The Bill also envisions a National Sports Tribunal, an independent quasi-judicial body tasked with adjudicating disputes. This move is designed to alleviate the burden on civil courts while also ensuring timely, informed, and sport-sensitive dispute resolution. The Tribunal is to be headed by a former judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, lending credibility and gravitas to its decisions.

In addition, the Bill establishes a National Sports Election Panel. This Panel, consisting of retired election commissioners and similar dignitaries, will supervise elections within sports bodies. The aim is to curb the electoral malpractice and internal politicking that have plagued Indian federations for decades.

Athletes stand to benefit the most from this legislation. Their representation in governance, guaranteed access to grievance redressal, and protection through codes of conduct and safe sport policies are all marked improvements. Equally important is the Bill's declaration that recognised sports bodies are deemed public authorities under the Right to Information Act. This brings them within the fold of public accountability, a long-awaited development.

For sports federations, the Bill imposes new responsibilities and conditions for continued recognition. The days of insular, self-governing cabals immune from scrutiny may well be numbered. Federations are now required to maintain proper elections, publish accounts, ensure compliance with governance norms, and adhere to ethical standards. Non-compliance can lead to suspension or cancellation of recognition.

The State retains significant control through the National Sports Board and by virtue of its rule-making and exemption-granting powers. While this helps ensure uniformity, there are concerns that such centralisation could, if unchecked, lead to interference and politicisation of sport.

Private sponsors and investors in sport may find the clarity and structure brought in by the Bill reassuring. When governance standards are predictable and legally enforceable, investment risk decreases. This could encourage further private-sector participation in Indian sport.

India is not alone in seeking a legislative solution to the governance crisis in sport. The United Kingdom enforces a Code for Sports Governance that mandates diversity, athlete representation, and board-level transparency. Australia has established Sport Integrity Australia, a central body overseeing ethics and misconduct. The United States has codified its approach through the SafeSport Act, which sets up legal protections against abuse and harassment.

India’s Bill appears to draw from these global best practices while tailoring its approach to local realities. The establishment of a dedicated tribunal, the integration of RTI, and the protection of vulnerable athletes represent an effort to harmonise international obligations with domestic enforcement.

While the Bill’s ambition is laudable, its success will rest solely on implementation. A few red flags merit scrutiny.

First, the Central government retains considerable discretion. It may, by notification, exempt federations from provisions of the law or relax eligibility criteria for committee members. Such powers, though perhaps necessary in limited contexts, must be sparingly exercised and strictly monitored to prevent abuse.

Second, while the Bill bars the jurisdiction of civil courts over matters assigned to the Tribunal, constitutional challenges remain open. Should federations allege a violation of their fundamental rights or principles of natural justice, the courts would still intervene.

Third, implementation challenges abound. The National Sports Board must be well-resourced, independent in function, and protected from political capture. The same applies to the Tribunal and the Election Panel. Without institutional independence and administrative capacity, a well-drafted law can fall flat.

The National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, is, by all accounts, the most comprehensive legislative attempt to reform Indian sport. It recognises the need for athlete-first policies, independent governance, dispute resolution mechanisms, and ethical accountability. It replaces the patchwork of guidelines with a structured and enforceable statutory scheme.

It is not a panacea. No legislation ever is. But it provides a foundation, and perhaps more importantly, a signal. It signals to athletes that their voice matters, to administrators that governance is not a private preserve, and to the international sporting community that India takes its responsibilities seriously.

Whether the Bill lives up to its promise will depend on how earnestly and impartially its provisions are put into motion.

About the author: Ujwal Trivedi is a Partner of Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. He is also a Licensed FIFA agent.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.