Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has taken a strong stance against the politicisation of sports administration, emphasizing the need to restore democratic values in the management of sports bodies. The apex court’s recent directives seek to address the undue influence of former judges, bureaucrats, and self-serving officials over sports federations.

Key Highlights of the Supreme Court’s Observation

1. Condemnation of Political and Bureaucratic Influence
• A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh denounced the control of sports administration by former judges and bureaucrats, stating it is “not good for anyone.”
• The court stressed that only individuals with a genuine sports background should hold key positions in sports associations.
2. Women’s Kabaddi Team’s Participation in the Senior Asian Championship
• The Supreme Court directed the Centre to ensure the participation of the Indian women’s kabaddi team in the Senior Asian Kabaddi Championship in Iran (February 20–25).
• The petition, filed by two national players, Priyanka and Pooja, highlighted the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India’s (AKFI) loss of affiliation with the International Kabaddi Federation (IKF), creating uncertainty over the team’s participation.
3. Dispute Over International Kabaddi Federation (IKF) Legitimacy
• Senior kabaddi players alleged that the IKF is a privately controlled body mismanaged by former officials, including Janardhan Singh Gehlot.
• They demanded that the AKFI’s constitution be aligned with the National Sports Code of India (2011) and fresh elections be held to ensure fair governance.
4. Call for Government Oversight and Investigation
• The Supreme Court urged the Union government to take control of the IKF and audit its accounts.
• Justice Kant issued a warning against individuals operating sports bodies from foreign locations like Kuala Lumpur and Dubai with mafia-like control.
• The court directed the Solicitor General to explore diplomatic solutions and asked the CBI to investigate the alleged financial irregularities in sports federations, possibly with Interpol’s assistance.

Implications of the Supreme Court’s Ruling

• Restoration of Democratic Functioning: The ruling may lead to a revamp of sports administration, ensuring that only qualified individuals with a sports background hold leadership positions.
• Stronger Implementation of the National Sports Code: Fresh elections and restructuring of federations in compliance with the 2011 Code could bring transparency.
• Enhanced Government Oversight: The Centre may need to play a more active role in regulating and monitoring international sports bodies affecting Indian athletes.
• Global Diplomatic Efforts: The conflict over IKF’s recognition could require diplomatic engagement and collaboration between international and national regulatory bodies.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the urgent need to depoliticise sports governance in India. By advocating for merit-based leadership and accountability in sports administration, the judiciary has taken a significant step toward ensuring fair opportunities for athletes and enhancing India’s sports ecosystem. The implementation of these directives will be crucial in shaping the future of Indian sports administration and restoring credibility to governing bodies.

1. Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court’s stance on sports administration:
1. The Supreme Court supports the involvement of bureaucrats in sports administration.
2. The Court emphasized that only individuals with a sports background should hold key positions.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that sports federations should be managed solely by private entities.
4. The Supreme Court declared that no government intervention is needed in sports bodies.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 3 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 3 and 4 only
(d) 1, 2, and 4 only

Answer: (b) 2 only

2. The Supreme Court’s intervention in the AKFI’s case was primarily to:

(a) Dissolve the AKFI permanently
(b) Ensure the Indian women’s kabaddi team’s participation in an international tournament
(c) Ban private organizations from conducting sports tournaments
(d) Merge all sports federations under a single governing body

Answer: (b) Ensure the Indian women’s kabaddi team’s participation in an international tournament

3. What was the primary reason for the uncertainty regarding the Indian women’s kabaddi team’s participation in the Senior Asian Championship?

(a) The AKFI lost its affiliation with the International Kabaddi Federation
(b) The Indian government imposed a travel ban
(c) The championship was indefinitely postponed
(d) Players went on a strike demanding better pay

Answer: (a) The AKFI lost its affiliation with the International Kabaddi Federation

4. With reference to the Supreme Court’s directives on sports administration, consider the following statements:

1. The Centre should take control and audit the accounts of the International Kabaddi Federation (IKF).
2. The IKF should be dissolved immediately.
3. The Supreme Court recognized IKF as the only legitimate governing body.
4. The Indian government should withdraw from regulating sports federations.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 4 only

Answer: (a) 1 only

5. Which of the following best describes the Supreme Court’s view on individuals managing sports federations from abroad?

(a) It endorsed foreign involvement in Indian sports administration.
(b) It allowed overseas management only if they had sports experience.
(c) It condemned foreign-based operations running sports federations in a mafia-like manner.
(d) It supported the privatization of all sports federations to global entities.

Answer: (c) It condemned foreign-based operations running sports federations in a mafia-like manner.