Introduction:
Sports have always retained an important role in any culture, with cricket being the most widely worshipped one in our country. It was even formally acknowledged by the UN that sports play a major role in advancing health, education, and overall development. While these sports themselves are regulated by a carefully crafted set of rules, there is a major dearth of regulation in arenas surrounding the sports industry itself. The widespread attention that these sports garner has often led to them becoming more and more commercialized. Seeking such profit is not a new phenomenon, but what is amiss in the present case, particularly in the Indian context, is the stringent regulation that needs to accompany such commercial ventures. The Indian Premier League, for example, has often garnered allegations of match-fixing. While the legislation on this subject remains scarce, the judicial decisions are even more ambiguous, owing to the technicalities that they often involve.
One such judgment is the 2004 case of Zee Telefilms v Union of India, which related to a broadcasting issue between BCCI and Zee Telefilms. In a writ petition brought under Article 32 of the Constitution, the question was brought forth whether BCCI can be considered a ‘State’ under Article 12 or not, since writ petitions under Article 32 can only be filed against state authorities. While the court held that BBCI did not constitute a state as under Article 12, in his minority opinion, Justice Sinha elaborated upon the reasons for BCCI being considered a state. He went on to elucidate the importance of sports in our socio-cultural sphere and the importance of sports in not only India but various jurisdictions, such as those of the United States of America, United Kingdom, and New Zealand.
Overview
The judgment delivered by Justice Ranganath Mishra in the 1991 case of K Murugan v Fencing Association of India elaborated upon the requirement of having stringent regulations for sports events and recruitments for tournaments. The case was related to the issue of the election for the role of president of the Executive Council of the Indian Olympic Association.
Facts of the Case
In November 1988, B S Adityan was elected as the President for a term of four years, however, in May 1990, a no-confidence motion was considered a requisition of 17 members for a special general meeting. This no-confidence motion which was considered against Shri Adityan and his Executive Council gave rise to the formation of two different factions in the Association. In May 1990, the requisition was overruled and a meeting of the General Assembly was called by President Adityan at Madras on the same day that the other group planned to organize a meeting at New Delhi. This situation of factionalism led to court proceedings and the latter group was not allowed to hold their meeting in New Delhi. Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court assigned a retired High Court judge to be the observer at the meeting in Madras and Shri V C Shukla claimed to have been elected at this meeting. Since, then the matter was brought before the competent court consisting of a single-judge bench, which ruled in favor of Shri B S Adityan. But further appeal on the issue led to the appointment of a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court as President as an interim measure. Hence this decision was challenged by the appellants in a civil appeal. The Fencing Association of India filed the appeal for the declaration that Shri V C Shukla had been duly elected at the Madras meeting and it was contended that the rules state that the President and Executive Council were elected for a term of four years. It was further brought out in their contentions that there had been no vote of no-confidence passed and in its absence, the period of office could not be curtailed.
Decision of the Case
The court, however, disposed of these appeals and reiterated the paramount importance that the functions of the Indian Olympic Association held in the international sphere. Justice Koshla who was serving as the interim president of the Executive Council was advised to remain in such a position until proper elections are held and the matter is properly resolved. The court expressed disappointment regarding the disagreements regarding leaderships that had arisen within the association leading to litigation and elaborated that such petty grievances must not foreshadow the important functions that they undertake. They directed for fresh elections to be held at the earliest possible time and consequent restoration of healthy working conditions. Hence, the court refrained from applying provisions of the law to matters pertaining to office-bearers and directed the authorities to attract attention to individual rights regarding rules and regulations.
While on the off-set this may seem like a neutral and balanced approach taken by the court, it can also be interpreted as one that is distant and lacking in distinct regulations.
Analysis
One of the major issues that have plagued the sports industry in matters pertaining to regulation and proper implementation is the lack of an external regulatory authority. The Sports Authority of India, set up by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to establish and manage institutions of sports and ensure the standards for the kinds of coaches that are recruited. This body serves as one of the only bodies regulating sports in India that isn’t commercially or nationally governed. The issue arises when these authorities, set up to ensure the sanctity of sports, start to indulge in activities pursuing commercial interests as seen in the case of Zee Telefilms v Union of India, or else becomes tainted with attempts at grabbing power, as seen in the case of K Murugan v Fencing Association of India. Hence, the setting up of an externally regulated body for the supervision of these authorities is imperative to ensure their proper functioning. The National Sports Policy, 1984 was further amended in 2001 as it was deemed to be incomplete in its execution. It was then that the importance of sports in the national and international community was brought to the attention of the masses. ‘Sports’ was added to the State List of Seventh Schedule as Entry 33 and thus, the matter was brought under the jurisdiction of the states to legislate upon.
Conclusion
Hence, the issue that was reiterated by Justice Ranganath in the aforementioned judgment in 1991, still does stand to some extent. Matters relating to in-fighting and personal politics must not adversely affect the process of recruitment and coaching as the importance of sports must be understood by those undertaking its proper regulation. These lines by Justice Ranganath succinctly sum up the issue:
“The grooming of amateurs has been thrown to the winds and the responsibility placed on the Society has not been responded to. This, therefore, does not appear to us to be a situation where rights to office will have to be worked out by referring to the provisions of the law relating to meetings, injunction and rights appurtenant to elective office. What seems to be of paramount importance is the healthy conditions must be restored as early as possible into the working of the Society and a fresh election has to be held as that seems to be the only way to get out of the malady. The entire nation is looking up to the results of the competitions at the international games when they are held. As we have already pointed out, IOA has great responsibilities to discharge in organising and streamlining the national sport activities intended for international events. The monitoring has to be a continuous one and unless the scheme is ongoing and is made result-oriented, the international performance cannot be up to any appreciable level. “
The judgment, while elaborating upon the importance of a healthy and well-functioning environment to be maintained for these authorities, lacks in clarity and distinctness that is required in the absence of any stringent legislation on the matter. There are currently many issues that plague the sports industry, with betting and gambling, varying forms of harassment of sportspersons in pursuit of commercial gains, and lack of clear regulation of the same being among a few. There also needs to be proper dispute resolution mechanisms that need to be set up and executed, as the long and tedious process of litigation can often deter the sportsperson from seeking redressal for the issues they are facing. Further, despite ‘sports’ being a state subject, there must be legislation implemented upon the subject that is in concurrence among the states. This becomes even more important when an international representation of India in various sports events is considered. The emergence of the Indian Premier League and Indian Cricket League has started to raise very important issues regarding Competition Law in recent times. While sports may be a highly technical field and one that has been previously left untouched by law to a large extent, its current commercialization and widespread popularity call for greater integration of sports and law to ensure ethical practices in the industry.
0 Comments