Laishram Sarita Devi's Lasting Impact on Indian Sports Law

^*

Indian boxer Laishram Sarita Devi recently made the news when she failed to make it past the second round of the Women’s World Boxing Championships held in Astana, Kazakhstan in May along with Indian boxing star M C Mary Kom, thereby failing to qualify for the Rio Olympics.¹

However, readers may remember Sarita Devi when she refused to accept her bronze medal at the 2014 Asian Games at Incheon after being declared the loser in her semifinal bout in a controversial decision. She alleged bias on the part of the judges, and indeed, it appeared that that she had been dominating throughout her bout. Indian Olympic Association (IOA) officials failed to support her and she had to borrow money from a journalist in order to lodge her protest against the decision. The International Boxing Association (AIBA) banned her for a year.

An ad hoc division of the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) was in operation at the Games, but Sarita Devi was perhaps unaware of this. While the IOA later stated that they would support and fund her appeal, her crucial moment to approach the ad hoc division (which decides disputes within 24 hours) was lost.

Mr. Rajiv Dutta, a senior advocate in the Supreme Court, filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court² against the Department of Sports, the IOA, and Boxing India.³ He argued that there was no appeal for Sarita Devi from the AIBA decision, and in general, that there were no guidelines on resolving disputes with international sports governing bodies. He therefore asked the court to direct the government to direct National Sports Federations (defined in the Draft National Sports Development Bill, 2013) to incorporate a clause for appeal to CAS in their rules and regulations.

The Court merely directed the government to give Mr. Dutta a hearing, but the government considered the petition, and just last month, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS), Government of India issued an advisory to all National Sports Federations.⁴ The MYAS not only advised NSFs to establish an “effective, transparent and fair grievance redressal system and mechanism”, but also to provide for an appeal to athletes and support staff from penalties and punishments imposed by international sports governing bodies to CAS.

Both changes, if implemented (and they may well, as most sports governing bodies in India are heavily dependent on government funding), will have far reaching consequences for sports law in India. Many sports governing bodies merely provide for their President or a partisan committee to hear disputes raised by athletes, and if the government intends that NSFs adopt principles of “good governance” (which will entail several procedural safeguards, and certainly the right to legal counsel of one’s choosing, the prevention of personal or institutional bias, and the requirement of reasoned decisions), such mechanisms may not prove fair and impartial enough to pass muster.

It is also important that Indian athletes be provided an appeal to CAS. The structure of global sports is pyramidal, and domestic sporting bodies are bound by the decisions of the international bodies they are affiliated to, but while athletes from the developed world are provided the right to challenge the decisions of such international bodies before a forum that both has the power to strike down unfair regulations and rulings, Indian athletes are often not as lucky. Laishram Sarita Devi’s case is a clear example of that.

However, providing a CAS appeal is meaningless unless the domestic sporting body offers support as well. In the few cases of Indian athletes approaching CAS, it appears that the athletes have not able to secure adequate legal counsel or expert witnesses. For example, in Amar Muralidharan v NADA,⁵ counsel for the athlete failed to convince the panel that a delay of two years during which the athlete remained on provisional suspension (greater than the maximum period of suspension that he could receive upon being found guilty of doping) was a violation of his procedural rights. It appears that there was no reference made to human rights instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights (to which Switzerland is a signatory), Article 6 of which guarantees the right to a fair trial, or to the Swiss ordre public (public policy), which includes procedural fairness, and which has been cited in other CAS decisions.⁶ Another example would be WADA v Nirupama Devi Laishram,⁷ where judoka Nirupama Devi was unable to produce any expert witnesses in her appeal against her doping ban on account of financial constraints. Financial support from the National Sports Federation would be imperative in such cases. Further, India does not have an established sports law bar that have sufficient knowledge of sporting issues and have experience before fora like the CAS. Even Dutee Chand, who received the support of the Sports Authority of India, and who, to the best of my knowledge, is the only Indian athlete to havewon in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, pleaded that she was put under pressure by her sponsors to undergo medical treatment that would be risky to her health.

In being denied an appeal (for whatever reason), has Laishram Sarita Devi opened the door for more Indian athletes to benefit from a fairer adjudicatory process and an appeal to the CAS? Given the lethargy and corruption in many Indian sports governing bodies, it is equally possible that such reforms as suggested by the government may take years to be implemented. And even once implemented, athletes would require institutional support for the reforms to have any success. However, this is still a big step, and we may remain cautiously optimistic.

*Photo credits: Pradeep Gaur/Mint

1Sarita Devi also failed to qualify for Rio in March 2016 when she lost her quarter-final bout in the Asian/Oceania Olympic Qualifiers in Qian’an, China.

2Rajiv Dutta v Union of India WP(C) 8734/2014, Del HC, decision of 15.01.2016.

3Boxing India was a governing body for Indian amateur boxing that was created after the Indian Amateur Boxing Federation (IABF) was suspended by the AIBA for failing to conduct elections. However, Boxing India was also suspended by AIBA, and the governance of Indian amateur boxing was taken over by an ad hoc committee appointed by the AIBA. This committee will continue until the new body, the Boxing Federation of India, is constituted, conducts elections, and receives recognition from the AIBA.

4Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India, ‘Safeguarding the interests of sportspersons and provision of effective Grievance Redressal System in the Constitution of National Sports Federations’ (Press Information Bureau, 17 June 2016), http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=146295.

5Amar Muralidharan v National Anti-Doping Agency, National Dope Testing Laboratory, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sport CAS 2014/A/3639.

6See World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v Jessica Hardy & United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) CAS 2009/A/1870; UCI v Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC CAS 2011/A/2384; Fenerbahçe SK v UEFA CAS 2013/A/3139.

7World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v Nirupama Devi Laishram & National Anti-Doping Agency of India (NADA) CAS 2012/A/2979.