Why sports bodies are opposing the draft legislation
The National Sports Governance Bill, which was to be introduced during the Winter Session of Parliament, is still being deliberated upon. On Friday, some Arjuna and Dronacharya award winners, including kabaddi player Deepak Hooda, boxer and World Champion Saweety Boora and wrestlers Neha Rathi and Sarita More met Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya with suggestions. More women and international athletes on the executive committees of federations and safeguarding of women athletes were the two major talking points. Understandably, the athletes came out happy and backed the Bill. However, as they were leaving the Sports Authority of India headquarters, a former wrestler’s response threw light on what transpired in the meeting.
“People only show good things and it was the same today,” the wrestler said. He was right, for suggestions were discussed, but no concerns were raised. On the other side of the spectrum are the National Sports Federations (NSFs) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), which have major concerns, and none more than the constitution of a Sports Regulatory Board that would give recognition to NSFs and ensure compliance of good governance principles.
IOA president PT Usha has already cautioned the government that it might be interpreted by the international federations (IFs) as an act to take away the autonomy of sports bodies. “In its current form, the proposed sports regulatory authority is granted extensive powers to control and regulate the functioning of these bodies and it will be perceived as infringing upon the autonomy of IOA and NSFs. This may lead to a conflict between the government and international sports governance bodies, particularly the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which has previously suspended many National Olympic Committees for excessive governmental interference,” Usha said in her written reply.
“The proposed sports regulatory authority, if seen as undermining the IOA’s autonomy, will lead the IOC to question the alignment of India’s sports governance with the Olympic Charter. A suspension would have severe implications, not only limiting India’s participation in the Olympic Games, but also hindering its international reputation as a sporting nation,” she added.
Narinder Batra, the former IOA and International Hockey Federation (IHF) chief, has questioned the very need for the government to grant recognition. “I do not see the logic behind it. Traditionally, NSFs get recognition from their international federations. Yes, everyone should comply with principles like auditing accounts and safeguarding of athletes, but other than that, it is an attempt to take control. All this started during Injeti Srinivas’ (former sports secretary and Sports Authority of India director general) time as he wanted all the federations to get dependent on the government for everything,” Batra c;laimed.
The veteran administrator gave the example of India Taekwondo, that is neither recognised by the government nor the IOA and yet is the only authorised body in the country that can officially send team entries as it is recognised by the International Taekwondo Federation.
National Rifle Association of India secretary general Sultan Singh said the Bill seeks to control the bodies and has no provision for promotion of sports. “The government only spends funds for excellence in sports via camps and competitions, but in this Bill, they want to ensure compliance in states and districts. We are already accountable. We hold elections, audit accounts but going into states is only going to increase conflicts. State bodies are governed by state rules. Also, they should leave federations to do the promotional part of sports as most federations are compliant with all the rules,” Singh said.
The Sports Minister tried to allay such fears on Friday: “Government doesn’t want to control bodies. The regulatory board will have athletes and members of sports bodies and their views will be taken care of, but one thing is non-negotiable, and that is good governance.”
The government has tried to placate sports administrators by relaxing age and tenure guidelines, but not everyone is convinced. Already, the draft has modified the 70-year cap for office-bearers in the sports code to allow administrators to contest if they have not exceeded the age limit at the time of filing of nominations. Further, tenure restrictions have also been watered down.
As per the draft, an office-bearer will only need to go in a cooling-off period of four years after serving two successive four-year terms. The tenure restrictions will only impact the president, secretary general and the treasurer, which is far cry from the IOA constitution and several court judgments as per which all executive members are considered as office-bearers.
Lawyer-cum-activist Rahul Mehra sees the draft Bill as an attempt by the ministry to help administrators connect with political parties, including the ruling BJP, to extend their control over federations. “I feel that is being done to help place Jay Shah back in the BCCI once he completes his term in the ICC,” Mehra said.
“I have several judgments that seek complete compliance of good governance principles, including that of the Supreme Court, which appointed Justice LN Rao to produce a constitution for the IOA, which was blessed by the IOC and the ministry. Now the only way they can get around is by bringing in the legislation,” he added.
Batra, too, has issues with the Bill’s lack of clarity when it comes to tenure guidelines. “It does not deal with administrators switching to a different federation after completing terms in one. Bhola Nath Singh, who completed two terms with Wrestling Federation, switched to Hockey India and is secretary now. These things have to be well defined otherwise it defeats the whole purpose,” Batra said.
