Sports governance in India: the Sports Code, federations and the 2025 Act

On August 18, 2025, the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 received the President’s assent, making India one of roughly twenty countries in the world with a dedicated sports law. For decades Indian sport was run by National Sports Federations that functioned as private fiefdoms: opaque elections, office-bearers who stayed for decades, and selection disputes that athletes had to carry to ordinary courts. This article traces the old order under the National Sports Development Code, 2011, the controversies that discredited it, and what the 2025 Act and the new Khelo Bharat Niti change.

Why sports governance matters

Sports governance is the system of rules, institutions and accountability mechanisms that decides who runs a sport, how teams are selected, where the money goes and how disputes are settled. It matters for three reasons. First, sport in India is heavily publicly funded: the government recognises National Sports Federations (NSFs), funds them, and fields the national teams through them. Second, athletes’ careers are short and selection decisions are irreversible, so opaque governance has a direct human cost. Third, India is bidding to host the 2036 Olympic Games at Ahmedabad, and international bodies judge a bid partly on whether the host country’s sports administration meets global governance norms.

The constitutional position is settled but delicate. The Delhi High Court has held that regulating national sports bodies falls under Entry 97 of the Union List (the residuary entry), so the Centre can insist on governance standards for NSFs and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) without a fresh constitutional amendment. The 2025 Act now puts that regulation on a statutory footing for the first time.

The old order: the Sports Code of 2011

The National Sports Development Code of India, 2011, framed when Ajay Maken was sports minister, was the first comprehensive attempt to discipline federation governance. Its core was a set of good-governance principles that the government made a condition for recognition and funding: a federation president could hold office for a maximum of 12 years (three four-year terms, with or without break), the secretary and treasurer for two successive four-year terms followed by a four-year cooling-off period, and no office-bearer could continue beyond the age of 70.

The Code went further. Federations receiving government grants had to comply with the Right to Information Act, hold free and fair elections, follow WADA-compliant anti-doping rules, maintain transparent selection procedures, keep proper accounts and databases of players, and act against age fraud and sexual harassment. The IOA challenged the Code in the Delhi High Court, arguing the Centre had no power to regulate autonomous sports bodies; a division bench of Justices Ravindra Bhat and Nazmi Waziri upheld the Code in 2014, calling its provisions neither arbitrary nor violative of the freedom of association under Article 19(1)(c).

On paper the Code was strong; in practice it was evaded. Federations amended constitutions to dodge tenure caps, parked loyalists in state units that controlled votes, and treated RTI compliance as optional. Elections remained the system’s weakest link: they were frequently challenged in court, sometimes stalled for years, and occasionally drew the attention of international federations, which guard the autonomy of national bodies jealously. The lesson of the Code era is a governance classic: guidelines without statutory backing are negotiable.

Controversies that discredited the old system

The most damaging recent episode played out inside the Indian Olympic Association itself. In January 2024 IOA president P.T. Usha appointed Raghuram Iyer as the body’s first CEO; a majority of the executive council refused to ratify the appointment, objecting to his salary of ₹20 lakh per month plus perks. The feud froze the IOA’s functioning for eighteen months. In October 2024 the International Olympic Committee halted its Olympic Solidarity funding, about ₹15 crore a year meant for athlete development, citing the governance crisis.

The standoff ended only after the sports minister’s intervention produced a truce on July 24, 2025: the executive council ratified Iyer’s appointment and the IOA set up a seven-member anti-doping panel, after the IOC flagged India’s doping record during the 2036 bid delegation’s visit to Lausanne. India had topped the World Anti-Doping Agency’s 2023 testing figures among countries analysing 5,000 or more samples, with a positivity rate of 3.8 per cent. The IOC resumed funding on September 3, 2025, citing the IOA’s corrective measures.

The episode illustrates why federation autonomy, the principle that sports bodies must be free from government interference, is not the same as accountability. International bodies protect autonomy from political capture; they do not protect office-bearers from financial transparency, fair elections or anti-doping discipline. When domestic governance collapses, as it did in the IOA, even autonomy’s guardians step in.

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on July 23, 2025, passed by voice vote on August 11, cleared the Rajya Sabha on August 12 after a two-hour debate, and received presidential assent on August 18, 2025. It provides statutory recognition to national sports bodies: the National Olympic Committee, the National Paralympic Committee, and National and Regional Sports Federations for each designated sport, each affiliated to its international federation.

Three new institutions do the heavy lifting. The National Sports Board grants recognition to national sports bodies, registers their affiliate units, and can de-recognise bodies guilty of violations ranging from financial misappropriation to electoral malpractice, besides regulating their funding. The National Sports Tribunal adjudicates sports disputes speedily, and its decisions are challengeable only in the Supreme Court, keeping federation litigation out of the lower courts; disputes arising during the Olympic, Paralympic, Commonwealth and Asian Games are excluded from its jurisdiction. The National Sports Election Panel oversees federation elections, historically the most litigated part of sports administration.

The Act writes athlete and gender representation into law. Every national body’s executive committee is capped at 15 members and must include at least two outstanding sportspersons and four women; the general body gives equal representation to each affiliate member. To contest for president, secretary general or treasurer, a candidate must be a sportsperson of outstanding merit or have served at least one full term on the executive committee. The central government also reserves a discretionary power to limit India’s international participation in extraordinary circumstances where the national interest is at stake, a clause that drew the most debate during passage.

The old Code’s spirit survives inside the new statute, but with sharper teeth: recognition and money, not just guidelines, are now at stake. In September 2026 the IOA’s special general body approved constitutional changes aligning it with the Act, including its age and tenure norms, ahead of elections due before December 10, 2026. The Act’s real test will be the first de-recognition: whether the Board acts against a powerful federation, and whether the Tribunal earns athletes’ trust as a faster forum than the courts.

Khelo Bharat Niti, 2025: the policy frame

Law needs policy, and on July 1, 2025 the Union Cabinet approved the National Sports Policy, 2025, titled Khelo Bharat Niti, 2025, replacing the 2001 policy. It aims to make India one of the top five sporting nations by 2047 and underpins the 2036 Olympic hosting bid. The policy is built on five pillars: excellence on the global stage, sports for economic development, sports for social development, sports as a people’s movement, and integration with education in line with NEP 2020.

Two pillars deserve attention. The economic pillar treats sport as industry: sports goods manufacturing, sports tourism, professional leagues, technology and services, with private investment through sponsorships and public-private partnerships. The social pillar targets inclusion: women, persons with disabilities, tribal communities and economically weaker sections, alongside early talent identification through programmes like KIRTI. The policy carries no independent financial outlay; it works through existing schemes such as Khelo India and the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS), and its administration increasingly runs through the 2025 Governance Act’s institutions.

Anti-doping: the parallel track

Governance of sport includes governance of the athlete’s body. The National Anti-Doping Act, 2022, enacted in line with the UNESCO convention against doping, prohibits doping in sport and provides the framework for testing, enforcement and adjudication. It establishes NADA, the National Anti-Doping Agency, as the testing and enforcement body, and a National Board for Anti-Doping in Sports to oversee NADA and advise the government.

The National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill, 2025, passed by Parliament alongside the governance law in August 2025, tightens this architecture: it empowers the Board to obtain information from the disciplinary and appeal panels and lists the conduct and circumstances that constitute anti-doping rule violations. With India’s 3.8 per cent positivity rate drawing IOC attention during the 2036 bid process, anti-doping credibility is now directly tied to the country’s sporting ambitions.

What examiners will ask

Expect prelims questions on dates and numbers: the Act’s assent (August 18, 2025), the Board-Tribunal-Election Panel triad, the executive committee formula (15 members, 2 outstanding sportspersons, 4 women), the Code’s tenure and age caps (12 years, 70 years), and the five pillars of Khelo Bharat Niti with the 2047 target. Mains will ask you to evaluate: does statutory recognition with de-recognition powers end the federation fiefdom, or does it concentrate too much power in the National Sports Board? Does the Tribunal’s Supreme Court-only appeal route speed up justice or price out the small athlete? The IOA feud and the 2026 constitutional alignment give you current examples for both sides.

Key Terms

• National Sports Development Code, 2011: The government’s good-governance guidelines for sports bodies, capping the federation president’s tenure at 12 years and office-bearers’ age at 70, and mandating RTI compliance and fair elections.

• National Sports Governance Act, 2025: The statute, assented to on August 18, 2025, that gives legal recognition to national sports bodies and creates the National Sports Board, National Sports Tribunal and National Sports Election Panel.

• National Sports Board: The body under the 2025 Act that grants and withdraws recognition to national sports bodies, registers their affiliates and regulates their funding.

• National Sports Tribunal: The specialised forum under the 2025 Act for speedy adjudication of sports disputes, whose decisions can be challenged only in the Supreme Court.

• National Sports Election Panel: The panel under the 2025 Act that oversees elections to national sports bodies.

• IOA: The Indian Olympic Association, India’s National Olympic Committee, responsible for the country’s Olympic movement and the 2036 Games bid.

• NSF: National Sports Federation, the recognised governing body for a particular sport in India, responsible for selection and development in that discipline.

• Khelo Bharat Niti, 2025: The National Sports Policy, 2025, approved July 1, 2025, aiming to make India a top-five sporting nation by 2047 through five pillars.

• NADA: The National Anti-Doping Agency, India’s testing and enforcement body under the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022.

• Federation autonomy: The internationally protected principle that sports bodies must be free from political interference; distinct from financial and electoral accountability, which autonomy does not excuse.

Practice questions