The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) has questioned the Union Government's competence to legislate on sports and accused it of trying to interfere in the functioning of autonomous National sports bodies.
The apex sports body has placed its comments, poorly drafted, and lacking in details, on its website in response to the exposure draft of the proposed Sports Bill that the government plans to bring to regulate National Sports Federations (NSFs).
The IOA has fallen back on the oft-repeated contention that sports was a State subject and unless it was brought into the Concurrent List (after amending the Constitution) there was no room for the Centre to legislate “in relation to any matter concerning sports.”
ADVERTISEMENT
It dismissed the government's contention that Entry 13 of the Union List (dealing with participation in international conferences and associations and other bodies) gave the Centre the power to legislate. It also rejected the government argument that under the residuary powers in Entry 97 it could legislate on sports.
The IOA contended that in 2004 the Sports Ministry had filed an affidavit in a writ petition conceding the position of law that only State legislatures were competent to legislate on sports.
“There cannot be any occasion for recognition by the Government of India even for giving financial assistance for any National Sports Federation in view of the fact that any condition imposed by the government will contravene the Olympic Charter,” the IOA said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The IOA claimed that the “total mess” in hockey in recent months was because of the changing stance of the government in recognising one body or the other.
The IOA rejected the government's proposal to bring in a Sports Council and said past experiences had shown that such bodies were created only “to give Cabinet status” to various political personalities.
About the age restriction of 70 being proposed in the new legislation, the IOA said that the government should not have any powers to direct a particular sports organisation to add any condition which was not there under the Societies Registration Act.
The Olympic Charter also provided the sports federations the right to determine age restrictions, the IOA argued.
Directions given
About the proposed arbitration procedures through a National Sports Ombudsman, suggested in the draft, the IOA said that the IOC had already given directions to all NOCs to amend their constitutions in such a way as to create a mechanism for dispute resolution through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The IOA agreed with the government that there should be transparency in the funding and spending of public money in sports. Irrespective of the legislation the IOA was prepared to strengthen any mechanism to ensure that government funds were utilised properly by sports bodies.
Treating the NOC as a public authority would run counter to the Olympic Charter, the IOA contended.