National Sports Bill vs National Sports Code: What's the difference?
The Sports Code was essentially a set of executive guidelines issued by the Sports Ministry. In contrast, the Sports Bill is a formal piece of legislation. Once passed, it will carry legal authority and make governance norms enforceable through statutory mechanisms.2. Age and Tenure RelaxationUnder the Sports Code, the age limit for office-bearers was capped at 70. The new bill allows those under 70 at the time of filing nominations to complete their terms. It also introduces a five-year relaxation if permitted by international federation rules.In terms of tenure, the code allowed the President to serve three terms, with a mandatory cooling-off period after two. The new bill permits three consecutive terms, up to 12 years, for the President, Secretary General and Treasurer, followed by a cooling-off period before becoming eligible for election to the Executive Committee again.3. Greater RepresentationThe 2011 Code had no mandatory provision for gender or athlete representation. The bill requires at least four women and two athletes of outstanding merit in the Executive Committee of National Sports Federations (NSFs), increasing inclusivity and athlete voice in decision-making.4. Independent Regulatory BodiesOne of the most significant changes is the establishment of three new statutory institutions:National Sports Board, which will oversee the functioning and compliance of NSFsNational Sports Tribunal, to handle disputes related to governance and athlete issuesNational Sports Election Panel, to ensure fair and transparent elections in sports bodiesThese bodies are designed to reduce ministerial overreach and address long-standing issues of internal politics, mismanagement and election irregularities.The Long Road to ReformThe introduction of the bill is the result of more than a decade of efforts to clean up Indian sports governance. The reform journey began in 2011, when then Sports Minister Ajay Maken introduced the first Draft National Sports Development Bill, which faced strong opposition from within the political and sports establishment due to its strict age and tenure caps.Over the following years, multiple attempts were made to revise and reintroduce the bill. These included:A 2013 draft released for public comments, which was not pursued further.The 2017 Draft Code for Good Governance in Sports, prepared by a committee under Sports Secretary Injeti Srinivas, with members like Olympic gold medallist Abhinav Bindra and international athletes Anju Bobby George and Prakash Padukone.A 2019 expert committee led by Justice (Retd.) Mukundakam Sharma, which was stayed by the Delhi High Court and remains inactive due to ongoing litigation.advertisementIn October 2024, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports released the Draft National Sports Governance Bill for public feedback. The government received more than 700 responses from athletes, federations, legal experts, private sports bodies and international stakeholders including the IOC, FIFA, World Athletics and the International Hockey Federation.Current Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya, who oversaw the final consultation process, acknowledged the contribution of Ajay Maken, stating that the former Congress minister "did good work in shaping the National Sports Code, 2011." Mandaviya noted that the new bill builds on that foundation but gives it stronger enforcement mechanisms.What Comes NextOnce passed by Parliament, the National Sports Governance Act will replace the 2011 code and establish a comprehensive legal framework for sports governance in India. The bill is expected to bring Indian sports administration in line with global best practices, similar to countries like the United States, United Kingdom, China and Japan, all of which have formal sports laws in place.With India emerging as a growing sporting power on the global stage, the bill could mark a turning point in ensuring that the country's athletes receive the support, transparency and professionalism they deserve.- EndsMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
India shot down 5 Pak fighter jets and one large aircraft during Op Sindoor: IAF chief
At least five Pakistani combat jets and a large surveillance aircraft were shot down by Indian air defence weapons, primarily the S-400 system, during the four days of hostilities between the two countries in May, Indian Air Force chief AP Singh said on Saturday, the first official acknowledgment of such successes by the Indian side. Air Chief Marshal AP Singh made the remarks while delivering a public lecture in Bengaluru.(ANI Grab ) Air Chief Marshal Singh, who was delivering a public lecture in Bengaluru, said attacks by the Indian military also destroyed or damaged at least two Pakistani command and control centres, at least six big and small radars, two surface-to-air guided weapons (SAGW) systems, and the runways and hangars at the airbases in Sargodha, Rahim Yar Khan, Sukkur, Bholari and Jacobabad. This is the first time that a senior Indian official has publicly revealed the aircraft losses suffered by Pakistan during the hostilities that erupted after India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7 to target terrorist infrastructure across the border in retaliation for the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians on April 22. Also Read: Operation Sindoor: 5 first-time facts about India-Pakistan conflict revealed by IAF chief Singh, who made a presentation on attacks carried out by the IAF during Operation Sindoor using satellite imagery and videos from Indian weapon systems, said: '[With] the SAGW systems – mostly [the] S-400 – we have at least five fighters confirmed kills and one large aircraft, which could be either an elint [electronic intelligence] aircraft or an AEW&C [airborne early warning and control] aircraft.' The AEW&C aircraft, he said, was taken out at a distance of almost 300 km, making it the longest ever 'recorded surface-to-air kill'. He described the S-400 air defence system, acquired from Russia, as 'a game-changer' whose range deterred Pakistan's combat aircraft. He said India's military strikes damaged or destroyed at least two command and control centres at Murid and Chaklala, at least six big and small radars, two SAGW systems in Lahore and Okara, the runways at the Sargodha and Rahim Yar Khan airbases, and hangars at the Sukkur, Bholari and Jacobabad airbases. Intelligence reports have indicated that an AEW&C aircraft was destroyed within the hangar at Bholari and some F-16s were damaged at the Shahbaz airbase in Jacobabad, he said. The hangar at the Sukkur airbase housed UAVs, he added. India's air defence systems and missiles had also destroyed a large number of Pakistani drones and long-range weapons, Singh said. The Indian side recovered a lot of wreckage from these drones and missiles which is being studied by the armed forces and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to learn more about the features of Pakistan's weapons systems and their launch sites. Singh said that in the initial stage of Operation Sindoor, the IAF was tasked to target terrorist infrastructure at two sites – the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) headquarters at Bahawalpur and the Lashkar-e-Taiba base at Muridke, both in Pakistan's Punjab province – while the Indian Army asked to target seven other sites located closer to the international boundary and the Line of Control (LoC). Speaking about the Indian government's decision to respond to the Pahalgam attack that was carried out by The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy for LeT, Singh said: 'It was made very clear that this time it should be an emphatic thing that we do. We must send the message across loud and clear to them, it should not be something just limited to [terrorist] launch pads and training areas. The terrorist leadership should be challenged.' India has responded to other recent attacks carried out by Pakistan-based terror groups by carrying our surgical strikes on terrorist bases across the LoC or with an attack such as the air strike on a JeM facility at Balakot in 2019. While Singh didn't give details of the weapons used to strike the JeM and LeT headquarters, reports have said the air-launched version of the BrahMos cruise missile and other missiles were used. He said the IAF decided to 'go with long-range weapons to keep ourselves safe from [Pakistan's] air defences' and since the targets were all 'hardened structures'. After the terrorist infrastructure was targeted early on May 7, India's Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) informed his Pakistan counterpart that only terrorist targets were hit to 'take revenge for Pahalgam'. Singh said India's DGMO also made it clear there was 'no intent to attack any military targets [and] so we can call it off here' but the Pakistani side made it clear they would respond. Pakistan's drone and missile retaliation foiled by Indian air defences Pakistan retaliated with drones, loiter munitions and missiles. It also attempted to saturate air defence systems at airfields and army installations by using a large number of drones but these were neutralised by anti-drone systems and anti-aircraft guns before they could cause any damage, Singh said. After intelligence reports suggested Pakistan was 'planning something very big' on May 9, the Indian side decided it would respond to attacks on any military installations by targeting key Pakistani military facilities. When the Pakistani attack came, the Indian side responded with strikes on airbases and other facilities across the border, he said. 'That night, we did not have any hold bar and we decided we will go and we will attack pan-front, we will stretch his resources. The idea was to give him an indication that 'Look, we can attack you deep inside, at will, wherever we want to',' Singh said. Thereafter, Pakistan's DGMO sought talks with the Indian side and this led to the stopping of hostilities on May 10. Singh attributed India's success to 'very clear political will' and clear directions to the armed forces without any restrictions. 'If there were any constraints, they were self-made. The forces decided what will be our rules of engagement…what will be the escalation ladder that we want to ride on…There were no, I repeat, no restrictions on us,' he said, adding the Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Anil Chauhan, and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval played a key role in strengthening synergy between the military and other agencies. Singh listed several takeaways from Operation Sindoor, including the primacy of air power. 'People have come to realise that air power is the first responder that any country has and air power…can react in quick time, attack deep inside and attack with precision to achieve your objectives without any collateral,' he said. Noting that the effective use of air power resulted in the conflict ending in less than four days, Singh said another takeaway was that the country cannt afford to be continuously at war. 'If we can deter, there is nothing better than that, but if we are forced, if the war starts…we should be very clear that we can reach a stage where we can terminate that,' he said. Singh cautioned against drawing the wrong lesson from the use of drones in conflicts worldwide, and said: 'Drones are very good means for many things but I don't think just drones can win you wars. You will require the bigger weapons, you will require the long-range weapons, you will require the precision strike capability because drones are more of a nuisance.'
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Mohammed Siraj's gold-standard performance in England grabs Wasim Akram's attention: ‘He is leading the Indian attack'
Legendary Pakistan pacer Wasim Akram feels Mohammed Siraj is no longer the support bowler to Jasprit Bumrah, and the 31-year-old is now fully capable of leading the Indian pace attack in the longest format of the game. In the absence of Bumrah, Siraj led the attack, taking nine wickets in the Oval Test against England, helping Shubman Gill's India level the five-match series. Heading into the final day, India needed four wickets with England just 35 runs away from the target. However, Siraj scalped three of the remaining four, helping the visitors register a memorable six-run win. Wasim Akram feels Mohammed Siraj is no longer the support bowler (PTI) Siraj had miscalculated Harry Brook's catch a day prior, resulting in the right-hander playing a knock of 111 and taking the game away from India. Off the bowling of Prasidh Krishna, Brook skied one in the air, only to find the ball lob straight into Siraj's hands in the deep. However, the pacer miscalculated as he stepped onto the boundary rope. Akram lauded Siraj's ability to bounce back from this misstep, saying it was impeccable how the pacer stood up when India needed it the most. Siraj played all five Tests against England, bowling more than 185 overs. 'Siraj was full of hunger and passion – it was an incredible effort. To bowl nearly 186 overs across five Tests and still be that fiery on the final day shows remarkable stamina and mental strength. He's not just a support bowler anymore,' Akram said in an interview with Telecom Asia Sport. Also Read: Virat Kohli's last Test jersey finds a special place at Mohammed Siraj's home 'He's leading the attack and doing it with heart. Even when a catch went down– that of Brook – he didn't lose focus. That's the mark of a fighter. Test cricket is alive and kicking,' he added. 'Glued to the last day' Wasim Akram said he was glued to the television screen for the final day of the Oval Test. This is a clear testament to how both India and England put on quite a show in the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy. 'I rarely watch cricket when I'm not working, but I was glued to the last day,' said Akram. "I gave India a 60 per cent chance on Day 5. They just needed that first breakthrough. With Woakes injured and India sensing blood, it was game on. Siraj made that possible," said Akram. The former Pakistan captain also lauded India for taking a brave call in resting Jasprit Bumrah for the series decider. 'It takes a brave team to rest their best bowler. But India had the bench strength, and the plan worked perfectly,' he said. 'With the Asia Cup in 2025 and the T20 World Cup in 2026 coming up, this kind of foresight is essential. Bumrah is vital across formats, and managing him well is key," he added.
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
1962 war not failure of non-alignment policy but of China policy: Ex-ambassador Shivshankar Menon
New Delhi, The 1962 war with China was not a failure of the non-alignment policy but that of China policy and this can be gauged by the amount of support India received from across the world, irrespective of ideologies, according to former diplomat Shivshankar Menon. 1962 war not failure of non-alignment policy but of China policy: Ex-ambassador Shivshankar Menon He said while speaking at the launch of Swapna Kona Nayudu's book "The Nehru Year: An International History of Non-Alignment" here Friday evening. The Non-Aligned Movement was created and founded during the collapse of the colonial system and the independence struggles of the peoples of Africa, Asia, Latin America and other regions of the world and at the height of the Cold War. Menon said that India received support from a whole host of countries, including the US. "In 1962, look at how much support we got across the world. And what it did to China's reputation in the third world was quite devastating. So I don't think it was a failure of non-alignment policy, it was a failure of China policy. "People take stands based on their interests. India got support from across the world. Some of it was ideological, from the US and so on. Whatever the reason, but you did get support across the world from a whole host of countries," Menon said. The former Indian ambassador to China noted that the success or failure of a policy "should be judged by the outcome, not what others say about it". "So I think we need to be a little careful in how we judge these things. And we shouldn't judge the success or failure of a policy by what other people are saying, or whether they are saying what we are saying. Ultimately it's the outcome that matters. You should measure what happens on the ground, what results were actually achieved," he added. The book, published by Juggernaut, traces the origin of non-alignment and its relevance in India's foreign policy since Jawaharlal Nehru's conceptualisation of it at the height of the Cold War. Nayudu explores Indian diplomatic influence in four major international events: the Korean War, the Suez Crisis, the Hungarian Revolution, and the Congo Crisis. Former ambassador Shyam Saran noted that the system Nehru had put in place emphasised "India has to stand for something more than itself". "Nehru and the system that he put in place always emphasised India has to stand for something more than itself. That there is a certain larger space that needs to be occupied and when we talk about the UN, when we talk about international cooperation, or working together for different causes, what is very important is the spirit of international solidarity," Saran said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
