Timeline Of A Bill: How India's Landmark Sports Bill Took Shape
Accused of indulging in power struggles, infighting, and financial misappropriation, the administrators have also been criticised for showing a distinct lack of intent to overcome any of these issues.
But with the new bill, accountability will be in place through a National Sports Board, a National Sports Tribunal and the National Sports Election Panel.
All of this took shape over months of dialogue that current Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya undertook with stakeholders, soon after taking charge last year.
Here's a look at the timeline of how the code turned into a bill with significant changes.
The Journey:
In 2011, the Ministry prepared Draft National Sports Development Bill and placed it before Cabinet for approval. However, it was met with vehement opposition due to strict capping of age and tenure for administrators.
In July 2013, the Ministry prepared a revised Draft National Sports Development Bill and placed it in public domain to invite suggestions and comments. However, this Bill was not pursued and a year later, the Delhi High Court upheld the Sports Code 2011.
In 2015, a Working Group was constituted for re-drafting of National Sports Development Code, 2011. But the inclusion of Indian Olympic Association top brass in this group was challenged in the Delhi High Court as a case of conflict of interest.
In 2017, a Committee was constituted under then sports secretary Injeti Srinivas, to prepare the '(Draft) National Code for Good Governance in Sports, 2017'. Olympic gold medal-winning shooter Abhinav Bindra, and other sports greats like Anju Bobby George, and Prakash Padukone, along with then IOA head Narinder Batra were among the members in the committee.
The Draft Sports Code was also challenged in the Delhi High Court, which ordered that committee's report be submitted to it in a sealed cover.
In 2019, the Ministry constituted an Expert Committee under Justice (Retd.) Mukundakam Sharma to review the Draft Sports Code 2017 and "suggest measures for making it acceptable to all the stakeholders".
That same year, the Delhi High Court stayed the constitution of this committee, an order that is in effect till date.
In October 2024, the Draft National Sports Governance Bill was released to the public for comments and suggestions. There were extensive consultation sessions held with the IOA, the National Sports Federations, athletes, coaches, legal experts and even private bodies that are involved in athlete management. The bill was also shared with the International Olympic Committee and international federations including World Athletics, FIFA, and the International Hockey Federation (FIH) among others.
The ministry received "over 700 responses" as part of the feedback from various stakeholders, including general public before it finally made its way to the Parliament.
July 23, 2025: The bill was presented in the Lok Sabha.
August 11, 2025: Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya reintroduced the bill in Lok Sabha with some amendments. It was passed after a brief consideration.
August 12, 2025: The bill was moved for passage in Rajya Sabha, where it was passed after a discussion that lasted well over two hours.
The differences with Sports Code:
Age Cap: While the Sports Code capped the age of administrators at 70, the new bill allows an office-bearer to complete his/her tenure if they were less than 70 at the time of filing nominations. A further relaxation of another five years has been made for contesting elections if the international statutes and byelaws allow for it in the concerned sports body.
Tenure: The Sports Code allowed three terms with a cooling off period after two terms for the President and two terms for Treasurer and Secretary. The sports bill allows office-bearers (President, Secretary General and Treasurer) to serve three consecutive terms of a maximum of 12 years and remain eligible for election to the Executive Committee after a cooling off period.
Executive Committee: The sports code had no provision for mandatory women's representation in the committee whose strength was capped at 15. The new bill mandates that at least four members of the EC must be women along with two sportspersons of outstanding merit.
Regulatory Body: The sports code had no provisions for a regulatory body to oversee NSFs, leaving the power to recognise or derecognise in the hands of the sports ministry. But the sports governance bill outlines the creation of a National Sports Board which will fulfil this role.
The National Sports Tribunal, which will adjudicate sporting disputes, the National Sports Election Panel to oversee polls in NSFs and the Ethics Commission were not a part of the Sports Code. All these bodies will have a significant role to play once the bill becomes an act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
New three-judge bench of Supreme Court to hear Delhi-NCR stray dogs matter today
TWO DAYS after a two-judge bench ordered authorities in Delhi and other parts of the National Capital Region (NCR) to relocate all stray dogs from the streets to dedicated shelters, the matter was referred to a three-judge bench on Monday. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria will now hear the suo motu proceedings initiated over the issue of stray dogs Thursday. The bench said that 'there should not be any compromise in undertaking any exercise' and warned that 'if any individual or organisation comes in the way of picking up stray dogs or rounding them up, we will proceed to take action against any such resistance'. The court said no sentiments should undermine the drive. 'Infants and young children, at any cost, should not fall prey to rabies. The action should inspire confidence that they can move freely without fear of being bitten by stray dogs. No sentiments should be involved,' it said. This led to protests from animal rights groups, which said the order was in violation of Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, that states that after vaccination, the dogs should be released into the same locality from where they were picked up. On Wednesday, a lawyer brought to the notice of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai that the August 11 order had not been uploaded on the court's official website. CJI Gavai said he is looking into the matter. The order was uploaded in the evening. Earlier in the day, a plea related to vaccination and sterilisation of community dogs in the national capital too came up for mention before the CJI-led bench. The plea by the Conference for Human Rights (India) in 2024, a non-governmental organisation, challenged the Delhi High Court's August 2023 order on its PIL seeking directions for sterilisation and vaccination of community dogs as per the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules. The High Court had disposed of the PIL without issuing any specific direction following which the NGO approached the Supreme Court. On July 8 last year, a two-judge bench issued notice to the Centre and the Delhi government regarding the plea. On Wednesday, the counsel for the NGO told the CJI-led bench that the respondents were yet to file counter-affidavits despite the fact that on May 13 this year, the Supreme Court had given them a last chance to do so. CJI Gavai then pointed out that another bench had already passed an order concerning strays, apparently referring to the August 11 order. The counsel pointed out that last May, yet another Supreme Court bench, led by Justice J K Maheshwari, had sent back petitions on the stray dog issue to High Courts saying 'there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines and the authorities have to take action in terms of the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislation in place'. The counsel said the Justice Maheshwari-led bench had added that 'there is no gainsaying in the fact that exhibiting compassion to all living beings, is the enshrined Constitutional value and mandate, and casts obligation on the authorities to maintain'. Following this, the CJI assured: 'I will look into it.' It is learnt that the CJI decided to refer the matter to the three-judge bench in view of the fact that there are now two orders on the same issue – one by the Justice Maheshwari bench and the other by the Justice Pardiwala bench.
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
IB staffer murder during Delhi riots a ‘chilling act of defiance', HC told
New Delhi Tahir Hussain approached the Delhi High Court against a city court's March 12 order rejecting his bail. (Representative photo) The murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) staffer Ankit Sharma during the northeast Delhi riots was intended as a chilling act of defiance against the security forces, the Delhi Police told the Delhi High Court on Wednesday. Even as a bench of justice Neena Bansal Krishna reserved the verdict in former municipal councillor Tahir Hussain's petition seeking bail in Sharma's murder case, the police, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Rajat Nair and advocate Dhruv Pande, submitted that it had evidence to show how Hussain, along with other accused, caught and dragged Ankit Sharma before stabbing him 51 times and dumping his body in a nearby drain, while he was trying to de-escalate the situation. Nair further contended that multiple eyewitnesses had identified Hussain at the scene, raising incendiary slogans and inciting the mob. He also contended that, due to Hussain's significant influence in his locality, granting him bail could lead to witness intimidation or interference with the evidence. The former councillor approached the Delhi High Court against a city court's March 12 order rejecting his bail. In its 10-page order, judge Pulastya Pramachala opined that the failure of three public witnesses to identify Hussain did not wash away or mellow down the evidence of other witnesses, including public witnesses. Hussain's petition in the high court painted a picture that the trial court disregarded the aspect of eight co-accused being released on bail and failed to consider the account of eyewitnesses who have absolved him from the prosecution's allegations. It went on to add that he had already spent almost five years in jail and that the prosecution had examined all the public witnesses related to the murder case. During the hearing, Nair contended that Hussain was not a passive bystander but an active leader, orchestrator, and participant in a calculated act of communal violence. He claimed this could be demonstrated by Hussain's actions—fortifying his terrace, stockpiling weapons, and relocating his family before the riots—indicating premeditation and direct involvement. Sharma's body was found in a drain near his home in northeast Delhi's Chand Bagh area on February 26, 2020, a day after he had gone missing after the riots broke out. Following the probe, the police had charged Hussain under sections of murder, rioting, criminal conspiracy, dacoity, promoting religious enmity and the Arms Act. A charge sheet was filed in the case in June 2020. In March 2023, a city court framed charges against Hussain and 10 other people.
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
DUSU polls to be held on September 18, results next day
The Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) polls will be held on September 18, DU Registrar Vikas Gupta announced in a notification on Wednesday. As per the notification, the last date for submitting nomination papers is September 10. On the same day, the list of duly nominated candidates will be published. The withdrawal of documents has been scheduled for September 11, and the final list will be issued on the same day. Polling will take place on September 18 and votes will be counted on September 19. The announcement comes amid protests by student outfits against the university's decision mandating that the candidates deposit a ₹1-lakh bond at the time of filing nomination promising not to deface public properties while campaigning. The ₹1-lakh bond is part of DU's anti-defacement measures, issued a year after the Delhi High Court came down heavily on the university for property defacement. Student groups, such as RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), Congress-backed National Students' Union of India (NSUI) and Aam Aadmi Party's Association of Students for Alternative Politics (ASAP), have opposed the move and termed it 'undemocratic'. Earlier in the day, the ABVP submitted a memorandum to the university demanding the withdrawal of the bond. 'Imposing a ₹1-lakh bond to contest the elections is not only undemocratic but also a malicious attempt to limit the elections to only the affluent students,' it said. ABVP national media convener Harsh Attri said they held a meeting with the Registrar, and he assured them of 'looking into their demands'. Reviewing options: DU The Registrar told The Hindu that they are considering alternatives to the anti-defacement measure. 'We are in the process of looking into possible alternatives, such as a guarantee from students instead, after multiple requests from students. We had introduced the measure in pursuance of the Delhi High Court's recommendations,' he said. Terming the anti-defacement measure a 'Tughlaqi farman', Kuldeep Bidhuri, the Delhi unit president of ASAP, described it as a 'conspiracy to directly block middle-class students from contesting elections'. Meanwhile, the NSUI staged a demonstration on the campus demanding 12 days of menstrual leave per semester for women students.
