Sports arbitration in India (Judicial precedents with criticisms)

In India, sports arbitrage is still relatively new. Before resorting to standard judicial
proceedings, which frequently lack sports-related experience and offer procedural problems,
disputes are usually settled internally by NSFs, which results in a drawn-out resolution
period. With the establishment of the Indian Court of Arbitration for Sports (ICAS) in 2011
and the appointment of Dr. A.K. Lakshmanan as its chairman, a vision to advance sports
arbitration in the nation was evident.1 The institution's establishment was intended to provide
a strong system for resolving conflicts related to sports. The absence of a specialised dispute
resolution mechanism has been one of the main disadvantages of the sports arbitration
process in India. Usually, the Sports Federation in question appoints an internal commission
to hear the issues initially. The party aggrieved will then have no choice but to pursue the
case through the courts, either the Supreme Court or the relevant High Court.2

Advent of Sports Arbitration in India

The Ministry of Law and Justice established the Sports Arbitration Centre of India (SACI) in
2012 to solve these problems. With the Ministry of Law and Justice's backing, the SACI
strives to function as an impartial body to promptly and effectively settle athletic conflicts,
thereby enhancing its accountability. However, arbitration, in general, is a “black hole” in
India due to shifting judicial opinions over time. As such, the effectiveness of SACI has not
yet been determined.3 A powerful and unbiased authority must act quickly in response to
allegations of sexual harassment, drug usage by players, and other forms of cheating in
sports. It will take time to determine whether this is the SACI.

Sports Awards In India

1
Vikrant Pachnanda, Lex Sportiva: The Importance of Arbitration in Sports in India, 1 NSLJ 115, 116 (2012);
Manvi Bhandari, Arbitration in Sports Dispute Resolution in India, 1 IJRESM 482, 482 (2018); Yash Gupta &
Tanya Sinha, Dispute Resolution Mechanism in Sports, 1 GSPR 29, 29 (2020).

2
Indulia, B., Arbitration in the realm of sports law, SCC Times (2023, February 24).
<https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/04/13/arbitration-in-the-realm-of-sports-law/>

3
A synopsis of sports law in India, IBA (June, 2023) <https://www.ibanet.org/A-synopsis-of-sports-law-in-
India#:~:text=Sports%20arbitration%20in%20India%20is,to%20a%20prolonged%20resolution%20period>.
Several reported awards passed by CAS originate from India, despite the fact that there is
very little law surrounding CAS in relation to Indian sports. Most of these awards have dealt
with matters such as player-club wage disputes, recognition of national sports federations,
and appeals related to anti-doping. The following is a discussion of the jurisprudence behind
a couple of the awards:

1. IAAF vs Athletics Federation of India & Ors 4- This is one of the earliest anti-
doping appeals involving Indian athletes in which the CAS was called upon to settle
the disagreement. The case was initially examined by the National Anti-Doping
Agency Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (NADA ADDP) because it featured six
Indian athletes whose samples showed the presence of banned drugs. Nevertheless,
the appeals process split into two parts, which the CAS ultimately heard. The Anti-
Doping Appeals Panel (ADAP) considered this appeal because two of the athletes
were listed by the IAAF as "international athletes," which meant the ADAP lacked the
authority to hear cases involving those two athletes.
As a result, the two athletes' direct appeal of the ADDP ruling to the CAS was filed.
The ADAP heard an appeal of the ADDP ruling on the other four athletes, and the
ADAP's decision was then appealed to the CAS. On the other hand, the CAS ruled in
an appeal that the athletes had a responsibility to take reasonable precautions to
guarantee the safety of the food supplements they were using, and that justification is
insufficient to support a reduction in penalties. The ADDP and ADAP's decision was
reversed as a result of this.

2. Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) vs International Hockey Federation (FIH) 5- The

lawsuit included a disagreement between IHF and Hockey India (HI), two bodies
claiming to be the National Sports Federation for hockey in India. The International
Sports Federation for Hockey (FIH) was the previous NSF for hockey in India. It was
later replaced by HI, which both the MYAS and FIH then recognised. In an attempt to
be recognised as the NSF for hockey in India, the IHF brought up the issue before the
CAS. However, the CAS ruled that since the FIH's decision to recognise HI complied
with its regulations, there was no room for interference. As a result, the CAS was not
required to rule on IHF's denial of recognition as the NSF.

4
CAS 2012/A/2763.
5
CAS 2014/A/3828.
 3. Dutee Chand vs Athletics Federation of India & Anr.6- This historic case dealt
with objections to the ISF Regulations. The controversy concerned hyperandrogenism
and the International Association of Athletes Federation (IAAF), and Ms Dutee
Chand, a well-known Indian athlete, sparked it. Chand's body contained more
androgens than was recommended; hence, her participation in the athletic event was
prohibited. Androgens are a group of hormones linked to masculinity that have the
ability to develop and retain male traits. Ms Dutee Chand contested this before the
CAS, arguing that her body naturally produced androgens rather than obtaining them
through doping.
Furthermore, it was argued that the aforementioned restrictions discriminated against
women by forcing them to undergo dangerous side effects-causing androgen
elimination medical treatments. The CAS determined that the Hyperandrogenism
Regulations were unsatisfactory after concurring with Ms. Dutee Chand's
submissions. Due to this, CAS halted the Hyperandrogenism restrictions for two
years, during which the IAAF was required to obtain scientific proof to support the
restrictions; if not, the laws would be deemed invalid. This ruling compelled the
IAAF to replace the previous Hyperandrogenism Regulations with new eligibility
guidelines for females who have a Difference of Sexual Development (DSD).

4. Club Royal Wahingdoh FC v. Othello Banei7- A Nigerian football player was the
respondent/complainant in this case. The player filed a claim with the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Committee (DRC), asking the Appellant club to reimburse him for unpaid
wages. The club rejected the wage claim due to the submission of false
documentation. The FIFA DRC instructed the club to settle the player's unpaid salary
balance. The club did not use its opportunity to appeal the DRC's verdict to the CAS.
The player then applied to have the FIFA Disciplinary Committee ("FIFA DC")
enforce the FIFA DRC's ruling. After agreeing with the DRC's ruling, the FIFA DC
ordered the club to settle the player's outstanding debts.
The club, in the meantime, attempted to appeal the FIFA DC's ruling before the CAS.
However, it made the mistake of appealing against the player, who lacked standing to
be sued, instead of impleading FIFA as a respondent. Considering this, CAS

6
CAS 2014/A/3759.
7
CAS 2015/A/4179.
 determined that even while it may hear the case anew, it lacked the authority to step
in.

5. Vinesh Phogat v. United World Wrestling & IOC 8- In this case, the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed a plea by wrestler Vinesh Phogat
challenging her disqualification at the Paris Olympics 2024, and seeking a joint-silver
medal after she was disqualified from competing in the final for being 100 grams over
the permissible weight in her sub-50 kg category.

8
CAS OG 24/17.