Introduction
Sports in the modern era are no longer confined to the playing field; it is deeply intertwined with contracts, governance rules, disciplinary codes, and international regulations. Disputes arise in various aspects, such as selection, doping, disciplinary sanctions, or contractual breaches demand swift and specialised adjudication. Globally, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which was established in the year 1984, has emerged as the principal forum for resolving such disputes. The forum offers uniformity, expertise and finality in its decisions. In the Indian subcontinent, however, despite a burgeoning presence in the international sports sphere, Indian athletes have rarely approached CAS, preferring domestic remedies or abandoning legal recourse altogether.
Therefore, this underuse perpetuates reliance on protracted judicial processes, often leading to career-ending delays and illuminates the gaps in India’s sports governance framework.
This blog analyses the elephant in the room i.e why Indian athletes seldom invoke CAS jurisdiction? It further analyses the doctrinal underpinnings of sports arbitration, critiques the barriers to CAS engagement, and examines judicial developments to argue that systemic reforms are imperative to align Indian practices with global norms and examines whether India’s existing dispute resolution framework adequately serves its interests.
The Role of CAS in International Sports Governance
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was established in 1984 under the aegis of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). CAS is an independently functioning arbitral institution specialising specifically in sport-related disputes; its jurisdiction ranges from disciplinary matters, contractual disputes, to doping violations. The decisions awarded by the CAS have finality and binding and are subject only to limited review by the Swiss Federal Tribunal.[1] The CAS has particularly played an influential role in doping jurisprudence, ensuring harmonised interpretation of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code). Overall, the CAS offers consistency and neutrality, especially where domestic federations may lack independence or expertise.
Sports Dispute Resolution in India
Indian sports governance is majorly dominated by National Sports Federations (NSFs), such as the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Athletics Federation of India (AFI), and Wrestling Federation of India (WFI). These bodies exercise near-total control over selection, discipline, and participation.
The Indian courts have time and again recognised that sports federations perform public functions, even if they are not “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.[2] Consequently, aggrieved athletes have continually approached High Courts under Article 225, challenging arbitrary selection or disciplinary decisions.
Whilst judicial intervention has provided relief in several cases, the same has led to prolonged litigation, inconsistent standards, and forum shopping, wherein outcomes fundamentally are at odds with the need for speed and finality in sports disputes.
Why CAS remains underutilised by Indian Athletes
- Limited Awareness and Accessibility
One of the primary reasons for CAS underutilisation is the lack of awareness among Indian athletes. A multitude of athletes, specifically those outside elite international circuits, are unaware of CAS’s existence, jurisdiction, or procedural advantages. Unlike in Europe or North America, Indian sports federations seldom educate athletes about international dispute resolution mechanisms. Moreover, CAS proceedings are conducted chiefly in English or French and have their seat at Lausanne, Switzerland. Indian athletes, this creates psychological and logistical distance, reinforcing dependence on domestic courts.
- Absence of Mandatory CAS Clauses in Federation Rules
In many international sporting systems, federation statutes explicitly incorporate CAS as the final appellate authority. Indian federations, however, generally lack explicit arbitration clauses referring disputes to CAS, particularly for non-Olympic sports.
In the case of BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India realised the absence of a uniform regulatory framework governing Indian sports bodies.[3] Without mandatory CAS clauses, athletes cannot automatically invoke CAS jurisdiction and must rely on federation consent or international federation rules.
- Financial and Resource Constraints
CAS proceedings, while efficient, are not inexpensive; costs related to filing fees, legal representation, and international travel can be prohibitive for Indian athletes, many of whom lack institutional or sponsorship backing. Unlike well-funded international athletes, Indian sportspersons often bear litigation costs themselves. Therefore, this creates a financial imbalance and discourages athletes from pursuing CAS remedies, despite the existence of strong legal grounds.
- Judicial Comfort with Constitutional Remedies
Indian courts have historically adopted an activist stance in sports matters, particularly where arbitrariness or violation of natural justice is alleged. In the case of S, Sreesanth v. BCCI, the Supreme Court of India intervened to set aside a lifetime ban on proportionality grounds.[4] Through such precedents, the perception of constitutional courts offering broader remedies, including interim relief, has been reinforced. Consequently, athletes view writ jurisdiction as more accessible and a powerful forum in ways the CAS may not provide in the same manner.
- Limited Integration with Anti-Doping Adjudication
India’s anti-doping disputes are primarily handled by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) and its disciplinary panels. Although India is a signatory to the WADA Code, appeals to CAS from Indian doping decisions remain rare. On the contrary, international athletes routinely approach CAS in doping matters, contributing to a rich body of sports jurisprudence. The lack of seamless appellate pathways from Indian anti-doping bodies to CAS has further restricted its use.
Legal and Structural Consequences of CAS Underutilisation
The marginal role of CAS in Indian sports disputes has several consequences, a few of which are listed as follows:
- It fragments sports jurisprudence, with different High Courts applying varying standards.
- It delays dispute resolution, often rendering relief meaningless due to the short career span of athletes.
- It isolates Indian sports law from evolving international norms.
From a governance perspective, continued reliance on domestic courts undermines the development of specialised sports adjudication and weakens India’s alignment with the global sports regulation sphere.
The Way Forward: Integrating CAS into Indian Sports Disputes
For CAS to become a viable forum for Indian athletes, systemic reforms are required. National Sports Federations must incorporate clear CAS arbitration clauses in their statutes. Athletes should be contractually informed of appellate remedies at the international level. Additionally, capacity-building initiatives such as legal awareness programmes and financial assistance mechanisms can bridge the accessibility gap. Domestic sports tribunals, if established, should function as first instance bodies with CAS as an appellate forum, mirroring international best practices.
Conclusion
The underuse of the Court of Arbitration for Sport by Indian athletes is not a reflection of CAS’s inadequacy but of India’s fragmented sports dispute resolution framework. Structural gaps, financial barriers, and institutional inertia have confined athletes to domestic remedies that are often slow and inconsistent. As India aspires to emerge as a global sporting power, integrating CAS into its sports governance architecture is no longer optional. A shift towards specialised, intentionally aligned dispute resolution will not only protect athlete rights but also strengthen the credibility and integrity of Indian sport.
Author(s) Name: Samyuktha NG (School of Law, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences (SOL, RUAS)
Rferences:
[1] Antonio Rigozzi, International Sports Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2015) 45–47.
[2] Zee Telefilms Ltd v Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649.
[3] Board of Control for Cricket in India v Cricket Association of Bihar (2015) 3 SCC 251.
[4] S Sreesanth v Board of Control for Cricket in India (2019) 4 SCC 660.
