[Author: Vatsal Agarwal, Law Student, Gujarat National Law University]

---

I. Introduction

When we talk about legal disputes, the frustrating part is the delay. And in sports, such a delay can end careers. Timing matters a lot in sports, and that too well beyond the cover drive: a mistimed shot costs a match, but a mistimed ruling can cost a career. Imagine a selection dispute decided after the tournament is over, or a last-minute suspension that is overturned, but only after the athlete has missed the Olympic cycle. All the work and effort put in were lost; the opportunity was lost due to the habit of delay in our legal system. This is why disputes in the sporting industry are very different from ordinary civil suits, where the passage of time can, at least in theory, be compensated in damages. The Indian sports industry has grown significantly and continues to grow; as a result, there are more disputes day by day, be it over selection, doping, or governance. The courts have not been able to keep pace and respond within the tight timelines. And therefore, this ultimately led to the enactment of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, which received Presidential assent on 18 August 2025, and the formulation of India’s very own National Sports Tribunal .

II. Why Did India Need a National Sports Tribunal?

Till now, if an athlete was aggrieved, she had some scattered options or forums to rely upon: an internal federation committee, often accused of bias; a civil suit; a writ petition before a High Court under Article 226; or, in international matters, the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. And because national sports federations were not considered ‘State’ under Article 12, as the Supreme Court held in Zee Telefilms Ltd v Union of India, athletes could not move the Supreme Court directly under Article 32; they had to take a rather lengthy, slower route under Article 226 to the High Courts, available because bodies like the BCCI discharge public functions, as held in BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar.  Due to this, the outcome was stretched-out litigation, like the decade-long Rahul Mehra v Union of India, which was about the governance of the Indian Olympic Association. Looking back over the last ten years, our courts have dealt with approximately 770 matters related to sports, ranging from selection grievances to governance failures, without any dedicated forum equipped with sporting expertise. It was the result of such shortcomings as fragmented forums, inconsistent outcomes, costly litigation and most importantly, the urgency of sporting calendars, that the need for a dedicated forum was felt, which is not only capable of interpreting the law but also of balancing the demands of the fast-moving and highly competitive sporting industry of India.

III. What Does the Tribunal Seek to Achieve?

The National Sports Tribunal, which is constituted under section 17 of the 2025 Act, includes a chairperson who should be either a sitting or former judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a High Court, and two members of repute in law, sports, or public administration. Its powers are equivalent to those of a civil court, and pending civil cases related to matters of sport before District Courts and High Courts are to be transferred to it. Civil courts are no longer permitted to entertain matters within their jurisdiction; appellate jurisdiction has been vested in the Supreme Court. And the Tribunal Rules 2026 also provide for a single–window e–portal and virtual hearings to make the forum truly accessible and swift, rather than just another courtroom by name. Each of these features points to the underlying objective of reducing the multiplicity and complexity of the litigation mechanism that has burdened the courts while leaving athletes without timely answers.

IV. The Biggest Strength: Justice Must Be Timely

Section 17 of the Act lets the Tribunal set its own procedure, including timelines for disposal, but the Act itself prescribes no binding disposal window; this is a gap the article will look into moving further. The most remarkable promise of this tribunal is of recognition, that, in sport, justice delayed is often justice denied outright. The operation of sporting careers is defined by the fixed, unforgiving calendars that stop for none, and these recent cases will illustrate why. In the recent case of Sudipti Hajela v Equestrian Federation of India, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court upheld the non–selection of the riders for the dressage team for the 2026 Asian Games on 29th June, 2026; on appeal, the Division Bench found that the federation had not complied with clauses 15(a) and (b) of its own selection criteria, but declined to order a fresh trial given the imminent entry deadline, by which time the horses were already stationed in a different country, leaving almost no scope for fresh selections even though procedural irregularities had been found. The Supreme Court urgently listed the matter for 9th July, 2026, and ultimately refused interim relief on 13th July, as counsel for the petitioners had raised apprehension that the matter would become infructuous by July 15.  Another stark observation is that in the matter of Dutee Chand’s challenge to the International Association of Athletics Federations’ hyperandrogenism regulations. After being dropped from the 2014 Commonwealth Games squad, the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s interim award, issued only a year later, suspended the hyperandrogenism regulations and let her compete at Rio 2016, but that year in limbo had already cost her the 2014 Commonwealth Games and Asian Games, opportunities no ruling could give back. Similarly, Vinesh Phogat’s disqualification from the Paris 2024 final went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport on an emergency basis, with the ad-hoc division needing multiple extensions before dismissing her plea for a shared silver medal, this is a reminder of how little room there is for review once a selection or eligibility window has closed. The Tribunal is specifically designed to resolve this kind of dispute while accounting for the sporting industry’s rigid clock, ensuring competitive opportunities and athletic careers.

V. Challenges That Still Remain

A reform is not concluded by mere legislation or statute; it is how it is implemented/enforced that gives it, or rather builds, its credibility. Still, several questions remain unanswered.

Firstly, the appointments to the Tribunal are made by a Search-cum-Selection Committee comprising the Chief Justice of India (or a nominated Supreme Court judge), the Law Secretary, and the Sports Secretary. Its long-term credibility will depend on how independent its members prove to be in practice. This matters because most sporting federations in India rely on government recognition and funding. It is precisely that dependence which makes executive- and judiciary-heavy appointments to their adjudicating Tribunal a live concern, echoing the Supreme Court’s tribunal-independence jurisprudence in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd , so when a dispute involves one of them, having it decided by a Tribunal whose members are picked almost entirely by the judiciary and the executive will raise fair questions about how neutral the forum really is.

Secondly, this is regarding Jurisdiction. There are still key areas of sport litigation outside the purview of this Tribunal, such as doping disputes, which remain with the Anti-Doping Disciplinary and Appeal Panels. And matters arising from major global events like the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games are again outside the purview, as are any disputes under the exclusive jurisdiction of an international sporting federation like FIFA. It preserves the primacy of internal federation dispute resolution committees, so that many important disputes can again bypass the forum. Its relationship with the Court of Arbitration for Sport, particularly where its rulings might conflict with international federation obligations, also remains undefined.

Thirdly, there is no prescribed timeline for disposal, which risks creating a backlog and leading to untimely decisions, a prominent reason for the forum’s formation. And that’s a genuine worry, sports disputes, unlike most, live inside a countdown of their own, be it selection deadlines or event dates, and without a binding disposal window forcing the pace, matters could easily drift right back into the same delays this Tribunal was set up to fix in the first place.

Fourthly, this is about accessibility. Research revealed the access-to-justice gap by showing that, out of over 1200 athletes found in violation of doping regulations, only 1% appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Hence, whether this Tribunal can serve only those with resources of national federations or also the grassroots athletes will be the real test.

VI. The Way Forward

If the Tribunal wants to work, there needs to be some course correction. Looking at what other countries are doing to build similar forums will give a fair sense of what is borrowable.

Firstly, on the independence question, Australia’s National Sports Tribunal began operating in 2020 as a two-year pilot, then became permanent, and was built with direct input from athletes & sporting bodies before its structure was finalised. Then there is Canada’s Sport Dispute Resolution Centre, which operates at arm’s length from government despite being federally funded. Our tribunal, in contrast, has its appointments controlled by the judiciary & executive, with no place kept for someone within the sporting industry itself. Therefore, expanding the scope of the selection committee to include people from the sports fraternity along with fixed, non-renewable tenures for members, will help the Tribunal from becoming just another government-run body.

Secondly, on the missing disposal timeline, we have our very own precedent. The National Green Tribunal is statutorily bound to dispose of matters within six months from the date of filing. Although there have been some backlogs over time, it has still been far more accountable than a forum with no deadline. Ergo, something on these similar lines for our sports Tribunal will put real pressure on the system to actually move fast, instead of just being built to.

Lastly, on accessibility, a tribunal for only the resourceful will not be as effective as it should be. Here again, the NGT’s circuit bench model is worth noting and even borrowing. It has 5 benches across India, which makes it more accessible. This zonal setting, along with the already existing virtual setup, will make it far more welcoming and accessible for the grassroots-level athletes. Couple that with some subsidised legal aid, and it can actually fill the gap in access to justice.

VII. Conclusion

The National Sports Tribunal is a major advancement in modernising India’s sports governance framework. Nonetheless, its success will not lie in its mere establishment, but in whether it can deliver timely, specialised, and trusted justice to athletes at every level of the sporting pyramid. If executed effectively, it can transform sports dispute resolution in India. And, if not, it will become just another layer in an already haphazard and complex legal landscape.

The tweaks suggested above are not asking for any reinvention; all they are asking to do is to borrow what is already existing and apply it here: a selection process that doesn’t feel entirely government-run, a disposal clock it’s actually bound to, and a door that a state-level athlete can walk through as easily as an Olympian can. None of it will happen automatically just because there is a statute now. It will take the Tribunal’s own orders and the government’s willingness to show whether this was built to last or to look good on a notification.

In Indian sport, the meaningful question was never really whether justice would be done, but whether it would arrive before the final whistle.

---

*DISCLAIMER: The opinions and views expressed in this article are that of the Author(s) and not of SLRI- the expressed opinions do not, in any way whatsoever, reflect the views of any third party, including any institution/organisation that the Author(s) is/are currently associated to or was/were associated to in the past. Furthermore, the expressions are solely for informational and educational purposes, and must not be deemed to constitute any kind of advice. The hyperlinks in this blog might take you to webpages operated by third parties- SLRI does not guarantee or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information, data, opinions, advice, statements, etc. on these webpages.

PREFERRED CITATION: Vatsal Agarwal, “Justice Before the Final Whistle? Evaluating the National Sports Tribunal“, Sports Law Review India, published on 14 September 2026.