The enactment of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, marked a significant step towards addressing these longstanding shortcomings. With the notification of the National Sports Governance (National Sports Board) Rules, 2026, and the National Sports Governance (National Sports Tribunal) Rules, 2026, the Act has now been operationalised through a structured regulatory framework that is set to reshape sports governance, dispute resolution, and institutional accountability across the country.

National Sports Governance (National Sports Board) Rules, 2026

The National Sports Board is the central regulatory authority responsible for recognising National Sports Bodies and monitoring compliance with governance, financial and ethical standards. The Rules prescribe its composition, tenure and powers[1].

Beyond establishing the Board, the Rules confer significant powers that are likely to strengthen governance. Most notably, the Board is required to maintain a roster of the National Sports Election Panel, which has been designated as a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Board is also empowered to issue model guidelines on various aspects of sports governance, including the constitution, functioning, and procedures of committees of National Sports Bodies[2]. These powers move beyond prescribing governance standards by equipping the statutory board with the authority to promote their consistent implementation.

Prior to the enactment of the National Sports Governance Act, matters such as federation elections, committee structures, conflict-of-interest policies, and internal governance procedures were governed primarily by the constitutions of individual federations, the National Sports Development Code, 2011, and the requirements of the relevant international federations. While these instruments established important governance principles, there was no dedicated statutory authority responsible for developing model governance standards, maintaining an independent election panel, or ensuring consistent compliance across federations. Election administration, in particular, emerged as a recurring source of litigation. 

For instance, in the Basketball Federation of India elections, the Returning Officer’s decisions relating to the scrutiny of nominations and declaration of the election results became the subject of proceedings before the Delhi High Court, which ultimately directed that the election process be conducted afresh under an independent administrator[3]. Similarly, in proceedings concerning the All India Chess Federation, the Madras High Court intervened in the electoral process after finding that rival factions had unilaterally appointed different returning officers in contravention of the Federation’s bye-laws. To ensure the conduct of free and fair elections, the Court appointed Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India, as the Returning Officer to supervise the election process[4]. These cases illustrate the absence of a uniform mechanism for appointing electoral officers under the earlier framework.

Since the commencement of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, the courts have begun to apply the new statutory regime to precisely these disputes. In proceedings concerning the All India Tennis Association, the Delhi High Court, taking note of the coming into force of the Act and the National Sports Governance (National Sports Bodies) Rules, 2026, held that the statutory framework now governs the field and rendered challenges premised on the National Sports Development Code, 2011, academic. The Court appointed an independent administrator to bring the federation’s constitution and bye-laws into conformity with the Act and the Rules and directed that fresh elections to its Executive Committee be conducted in accordance with the new framework. This is an early indication that the courts now regard the statutory regime, rather than the erstwhile Code, as the governing framework for federation elections.

The establishment of a statutory National Sports Election Panel is particularly significant in addressing these concerns. By maintaining a centrally administered panel from which Electoral Officers may be appointed[5], the Rules seek to strengthen the independence and credibility of federation elections. While the Charter or Statutes of an International Sports Body may still require the appointment of a different electoral officer[6], the introduction of an independent statutory panel marks a significant departure from the earlier system, where election management was largely governed by individual federation constitutions.

Equally significant is the Board’s authority to issue model guidelines on the constitution, functioning, and procedures of committees of National Sports Bodies. Rather than leaving individual federations to develop governance practices independently, the Rules envisage the Board playing a continuing role in promoting greater consistency in the operation of committees of National Sports Bodies.

However, the Board’s powers remain subject to important limitations. The Board may issue model guidelines only on matters specified by or referred to by the Central Government[7], meaning that its standard-setting role continues to operate within the broader framework of executive oversight. Further, in relation to mandatory committees, National Sports Bodies are required to first comply with the applicable Charter or Statutes of the relevant International Sports Body, followed by the guidelines of the National Olympic Committee[8]. The Board’s model guidelines apply only where these instruments are silent or do not provide adequate guidance.

As the National Sports Board is only now becoming operational, its true contribution to sports governance will ultimately be measured not merely by the powers conferred upon it by the Rules, but by the effectiveness with which those powers are exercised in practice.

National Sports Tribunal Rules, 2026

Among the most consequential and long-awaited features of the new framework is the National Sports Tribunal (NST). While the National Sports Governance Act established the Tribunal, the National Sports Tribunal Rules, 2026, now provide the procedural framework necessary for it to become operational.

The Tribunal will be headed by a person who is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court, or the Chief Justice of a High Court, assisted by two Members possessing experience in sports, public administration, or law[9]. It has been established as an independent forum for the adjudication of sports disputes, with appeals lying either to the Supreme Court or, where required under the applicable rules of an international federation, to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)[10].

At the same time, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is subject to important limitations. The Act excludes disputes arising during major international sporting events, matters that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the internal dispute resolution mechanisms of National Sports Bodies or other statutory tribunals, courts, international federations or the Court of Arbitration for Sport, as well as anti-doping disputes governed by the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022[11].

The Rules also reflect a modern approach to dispute resolution by introducing a technology-driven framework. Proceedings may be initiated through a dedicated single-window online portal, notices and other communications may be served electronically, hearings may be conducted virtually, and records are to be maintained and published digitally[12]. This is intended to make the Tribunal more accessible to athletes and other stakeholders across the country.

Another notable feature is the Tribunal’s express power to issue such directions or pass such orders as may be necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of its process[13].

However, an important practical question remains regarding the nature of disputes that will ultimately fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Given the wide range of statutory exclusions, the Tribunal is likely to primarily adjudicate domestic governance disputes, including athlete selection, federation recognition and affiliation, election-related disputes, disciplinary matters unrelated to anti-doping, and disputes concerning the implementation of the National Sports Governance Act and the Rules framed thereunder. That said, it is worth flagging that this remains, at present, largely theoretical.

As the Tribunal is still in the process of being constituted, its practical functioning remains untested. It is therefore unclear how it will address jurisdictional grey areas, such as inaction or prolonged delay by a federation’s internal committee, or how effectively its orders will be enforced in practice. Although the Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts[14], it also remains to be seen whether the Tribunal will emerge as the primary forum for sports governance disputes or whether parties will continue to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts. Its true scope and effectiveness will ultimately be determined by its jurisprudence and the consistency with which its decisions are implemented.

Conclusion

The National Sports Board Rules and the National Sports Tribunal Rules represent an important step towards institutionalising sports governance in India, laying the foundation for a more structured and accountable regulatory framework. By providing a clearer institutional framework for federation elections and a specialised forum for the adjudication of sports disputes, the reforms have the potential to reduce governance-related litigation and the need for judicial intervention. Their long-term success, however, will ultimately depend on how effectively the Board and the Tribunal exercise their respective powers.