Sports Bill is now an Act after President nod
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The legislation, along with the National Anti-Doping (amendment) Bill 2025, was passed in the Lok Sabha by a 'voice vote' on Aug 11. A day later, the two bills also cleared the Rajya Sabha hurdle following discussions before being sent to the President.
Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SUBSCRIBE NOW!
'The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 18th of Aug 2025 and is hereby published for general information — the National Sports Governance Act, 2025,' a gazette notification by the govt stated.
Now, the govt's efforts will be directed towards establishing a National Sports Board (NSB), National Sports Tribunal (NST) and National Sports Election Panel (NSEP) for good governance in NSFs and achieving better results in sports.
A key aspect of the Act, following amendments introduced by the govt, states that the proposed tribunal 'shall not have jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute or conflict arising during the Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, Commonwealth and Asian Games, or any other similar events organised by any international federations'.
The tribunal will also not adjudicate 'any dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the internal disputes' resolution committee of a national sports body; or any other tribunal or court; or any international federation; or the Court of Arbitration for Sports established in Lausanne'.
The Act says the tribunal will have the powers of a civil court and decide disputes ranging from selection to election involving federations and athletes. Once instituted, the tribunal's decisions can only be challenged in the Supreme Court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
22 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
DPDPA gaps delay privacy promise
Eight years after the landmark K S Puttaswamy judgement affirmed privacy as a fundamental right, its promise remains unfulfilled. The judgement, invoking the Preamble, recognised privacy as an enabling right essential for the fulfillment of all other fundamental rights, including equality. Yet, as automation becomes pervasive across sectors like healthcare and social security, India's legal framework proves inadequate in addressing the biases and discrimination that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) 2023 is a step in the right direction, it suffers from significant shortcomings. The Act's Section 7 provides for 'certain legitimate uses', creating loopholes for extensive profiling and automated decisions. This allows personal data collection without explicit consent for various purposes, including state functions and employment, not just when voluntarily provided..A more significant weakness is the Act's failure to define profiling or regulate automated decision-making. In simple terms, automated decision-making means the use of algorithms to make a decision based on certain given facts or a collection of facts. Profiling, on the other hand, means analysing various aspects of an individual to decide about 'automated processing' is defined, it is not used to grant any substantive rights to the affected individuals. This legislative lacuna is glaring, especially given the B N Srikrishna Committee's recommendations for automated safeguards. While Section 8(3) requires data fiduciaries to ensure data accuracy when making decisions that affect the data principal, it doesn't mandate a right to challenge the process itself. This opacity creates an accountability vacuum, making it virtually impossible to challenge unfair or discriminatory consequences of this regulatory vacuum are profound, manifesting in tangible bias and discrimination across vital sectors. In public services, algorithmic systems like Telangana's Samagra Vedika, designed to assess welfare eligibility, have reportedly excluded approximately 15,000 marginalised individuals due to technical glitches or flawed financial sector faces a significant challenge with digital lending algorithms that can inadvertently perpetuate historical biases, leading to unequal access to credit. This was highlighted by a recent incident involving an Indian NBFC, where an Artificial Intelligence(AI) tool miscategorised over 17,000 low-income applicants as high-risk. The system's bias, which favoured applicants with a strong digital footprint and extensive data, was corrected only after crucial human intervention, underscoring the vital role of the 'human-in-the-loop' approach. The incident serves as a powerful reminder that while the RBI's FREE-AI framework is a proactive step, human oversight remains indispensable in AI-driven credit engaged in platform work are also at the mercy of algorithms and automated decision-making. Studies show that unregulated use of AI in the gig economy can be detrimental to platform workers. While states such as Rajasthan and Karnataka have passed bills to regulate platform work, these bills do not address the use of AI by companies to 'manage' their workforce..A case for human cost is compounded by the absence of a 'right to explanation' in the DPDPA. The Act defines 'gain' and 'loss,' but only uses these terms for monetary penalties under Section 33, not to grant relief for the tangible harm caused by automated data processing. Furthermore, since the right not to be solely subjected to automated decision-making has not been incorporated in the DPDP Act, people are left without a remedy in case of discrimination or errors in the automation process. This lack of legal remedy is against the tenet of ubi jus remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy), given that privacy is a fundamental legislative vacuum in India stands in stark contrast to global frameworks. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and the United Kingdom's GDPR provide crucial safeguards like mandatory Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) and the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions. These safeguards, along with the EU AI Act's classification of high-risk activities like credit assessment, impose strict requirements on providers, including human oversight and data quality checks. These crucial safeguards are missing from the we reflect on the anniversary of the Puttaswamy judgement, it is clear that its promise of digital rights remains unfulfilled when automated systems can discriminate without our knowledge or consent. India possesses a unique opportunity to lead in ethical AI governance by amending the DPDPA. By including a right to explanation, a clear definition of profiling, and specific regulation of automated decisions, we can fulfil the true promise of privacy and equality in the digital age..(Utkarsh is a final-year law student at RMLNLU, Lucknow; Harshita is a student at National Law University, Jodhpur)
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Nuclear laws and the role of Opposition
Political parties in India, especially the Opposition, will soon need to take a view on a critical subject with a bearing on the country's energy security and climate change mitigation. The proposal to amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA), 2010, and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962 — which in the past witnessed intense debate — sooner or later, is expected to come up in Parliament. With the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance government indicating its intention to introduce it during the monsoon session, Parliament will revisit the issue whenever the Bills are introduced. The plan is to amend the CLNDA and the AEA to address the vexatious issue of liability on the suppliers of equipment and permit private parties in the field of nuclear energy, respectively. The India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Agreement and the enactment of the CLNDA led to a series of standoffs between the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government and Opposition parties — the BJP and the Left parties led by CPI(M). Historical context Fifteen years ago, the government introduced a Bill to write laws for compensation to the people for nuclear accidents, as India was not a party to any of the existing conventions. Parliament was engaged in a lengthy debate, as the government preferred the passage of liability along the lines of international covenants. Lack of requisite strength in the Rajya Sabha, dreadful memories of the suffering of people from the 1984 Bhopal gas leak, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the damage to the nuclear reactor at Fukushima, Japan, following an earthquake, provided the backdrop. Sensing an opportunity, the combined opposition pressed to raise the compensation bar on suppliers of nuclear reactor equipment and beyond the immediate compensation liability on the operator. The insertion of the clause rendered the Act dead on arrival. Western country equipment suppliers shied away. An attempt to tweak it a decade ago made little difference, and international response remains lukewarm. In 2007, during the debate around the nuclear deal, questions were raised about whether it was considering amending the AEA, allowing private sector participation. The government then noted that the 1997 report of the Dr. Raja Ramanna Committee had been examined, and a review of the Act had been under consideration since then. Now both issues are scheduled to return on Parliament's agenda. Raising concerns In February this year, the Congress raised objections to the announcement to amend the Acts. It said the move dilutes accountability of suppliers, raises domestic risk, and protects equipment suppliers, reflecting the Convention on Supplementary Compensation, compromising the citizens' safety, and leaning in favour of international corporations. The party also alleged that the move was intended to appease foreign interests, particularly France and the U.S., ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit. Back in 2010, then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that the process for compensation for nuclear accidents began in 1999, and such a law was needed. The government then dismissed claims that the proposed law was timed with a visit by President Barack Obama. Now, the central issue is whether the Congress will take a studied stance on the proposed legislation. There is a serious debate taking place outside on the move to build small modular reactors, with many countries vying to have a piece of the pie. The contribution of energy from nuclear power is estimated to be slightly over 3% of the total power generation. At the end of last year, the installed capacity of 24 nuclear power plants stood at 8.8 GW, the government informed Parliament. This was when the country set a target of 10 GW by the year 2000. The government now aims for 22.48 GW by 2031-32 and an ambitious 100 GW by 2047. In the past, the Opposition took an about-turn on three key issues. At the turn of the century, opposition led to a delay in enacting an amendment to the Patents Act, 1970. Eventually, after a change of sides, the Opposition's support resulted in the mandatory amendment. A decade ago, on two other contentious issues, the Opposition stalled laws, one on insurance law to raise the foreign direct investment ceiling, and the ratification of the exchange of enclaves with Bangladesh under the Land Border Agreement. Finally, these proposed laws were enacted with the then-Opposition offering support, with minor or no concessions. Leaders across the aisle walked together to arrive at an agreed position as the governments of the day worked, in their assessment, to further the national interest. Need for a debate Today, the NDA government does not have to look across the aisle for support. The current issues have long-term implications, and there is a need for a well-rounded discussion that takes into account all factors around nuclear energy, the shift towards small modular reactors, the larger question of disposal of nuclear waste, and allied subjects. The Opposition should play a leading role in initiating this discussion and decide accordingly. Otherwise, during a debate on a contentious issue two decades ago, a member on the Treasury Benches remarked to another member of the Opposition that a change of sides should not result in a change of stand. K. V. Prasad is a senior Delhi-based journalist and authored a book Indian Parliament Shaping Foreign Policy
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
With real money gaming ban, govt. breaks off from self-regulation attempts
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, which was passed in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday (August 20, 2025), marks a major and sudden departure for the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology from its earlier approach of nudging the real money gaming (RMG) industry to self-regulate. The industry, which counts large firms like Dream11, MPL and PokerBaazi, has largely maintained public silence, but has voiced concern in a letter to Home Minister Amit Shah. In 2023, the IT Ministry announced an amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to regulate RMG firms, by getting them to set up a government-registered self-regulatory body. However, IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw told reporters on Wednesday the proposals were rife with conflicts of interest. In the meantime, complaints mounted from MPs and social organisations, Mr. Vaishnaw said, about the toll that RMG platforms were exerting on their constituents and families around the country. 'This was across party lines,' Mr. Vaishnaw said. 'In every State we were hearing these complaints.' Similar pan-partisan tensions preceded the decision by the GST Council in 2023, when a 28% tax was slapped on all deposits in RMG platforms at face value, as opposed to on the commission, as was the case earlier. The RMG industry has successfully stalled or fought off State-level bans, thanks to the courts' settled view that games of 'skill,' where a player's experience and smarts can influence the outcome far more than luck, do not constitute gambling. Since States are restricted by the Constitution on regulating games that are not legally recognised as gambling, the Union government holds the cards. And until Wednesday, it appeared that a light-touch regime would prevail. With this Bill, the government seeks to render the skill-chance binary moot, presenting the RMG industry with perhaps its final shot at legitimacy at the courts. If the courts do not side in the government's favour, the state would continue to have yet another policy tool at its disposal: the rumoured so-called sin tax GST rate of 40%, which would further strain the industry's ability to remain an enticing option for people who want to play to win money. 'Litigation is inevitable,' Meghna Bal, founder of the tech policy think tank Esya Centre said, 'as this law fails the test of proportionality under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.' Ms. Bal argued that the 2023 IT Rules amendment was a feasible way to regulate the sector. 'There is no rational connection between the law and the purpose it seeks to serve, as it only opens up the market further for illegal offshore platforms that are driving financial losses.' The Bill also provides explicit clarity to esports firms, which offer competition-based video games, with real life tournaments gaining increasing interest and viewership in India. An 'authority' would be established by the IT Ministry that would register esports firms as well as determine whether a given platform is an 'online money game' or not.
