- Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. RavindraBhat, Hon'ble Mr. Justice NajmiWaziri
- Petitioners: Indian Olympic Association
- Respondents: Union of India
Facts of the Case:
The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) has rejected the latest draft of the National Sports Code, as well as raising concerns regarding many of the articles in the newly drafted draft. The 2011 National Sports Code is still in place but in 2017 a new National Sports Code was published. The newly crafted draft proposed modifications to the original 2011 code. It included the barring from holding office in the National Sports Federation and the IOA of ministers, members of parliament and legislative assemblies. Nevertheless, though rejecting the draft 2017 National Sports Code, the IOA has clarified that the new draft does not contain or define the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) and the Paralympic Committee of India.The IOA also said there is no distinction specified in the code for NSFs that regulate sports specifically for the disabled and Special Olympics. About the 70-year age limit for its office bearers, the IOA said the standard was in line with the Olympic charter but the International Olympic Committee did not impose it on all international federations. The IOA also suggested that each NSF be allowed to meet the age limit of their respective international federation, or that a uniform age limit of 75 be imposed.
Judgement:
It was verbatim said by the Court that, “Sports administration in this country appears to have reached depths from where neither sporting bodies nor the State seem to care any longer for the successive generations‟ sporting future. Reform is to be introduced urgently by the State. Sports administration appears to be mired in power play, where money, influence and chicanery play a dominant part and those who had participated in competitive sports at some stage are given token representation at best, or mostly marginalized. As the cliché goes, the state of sports is in a lockjaw where roughly 1.2 billion people have to rest content with a harvest of medals so meagre as to be surpassed by just one individual like Micheal Phelps. The London Olympic saw India notch up a tally of six medals. This averages to one medal for roughly every 207 million inhabitants. It is not without truth that the common perception that Karnam Malleswari, Col Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, Abhinav Bindra, Sushil Kumar Tehlan and Vijender Singh were driven for individual personal reasons to focus on competitive sports. Sport administration, the way it is run in India, through coteries, cabals, manipulations and intrigues, seems to discourage a vast majority of the population to devote itself to athletics, shooting, judo, table tennis, gymnastics, soccer, boxing, fencing and the like. Sports can be popularized and made successful, when those who genuinely feel the need to inspire and attract talent, and are themselves driven by inspiration, evolve policies that result in a range of sporting activities becoming as or even somewhat as rewarding as cricket. As a nation too, we should not be deadened to news that sportspersons sell their proudly and hard earned medals to fight off penury (as in the case of SitaSahu, a mentally challenged teenager from Rewa who won two Bronze Medals in the 2011 Olympic Games). Till the time that India, with her more than a billion, continues to have a feeble sporting outlook, those who excel will do so despite the state of NSFs and sports bodies controlling them.”
In view of the above conclusions, the writ petition failed.
