Open Forum
New Delhi, 21 September 2011
Sports Bill Raises Storm
FEDERATIONS MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE
By Dr.S. Saraswathi
(Ex Director, ICSSR)
The Sports Ministry’s draft Bill on Sports Development
formulated with the avowed object of bringing more accountability and
transparency in the functioning of the sports bodies was rejected by the Union
Cabinet. According to the Sports Minister, the Bill is intended to benefit
sports and sports-persons and to create an atmosphere conducive to the
promotion of sports in the country.
Though the object is laudable, some of the clauses in the
Bill were unacceptable to politicians involved in sports. The important clauses include bringing sports
federations under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, making it mandatory to
include sports-persons in the executive boards of various federations up to 25
per cent of the total members, fixing an upper age limit for boards’ members
and submitting long-term development plans of the federations to the Ministry.
There are about 200 sports federations in the country
working as independent and autonomous bodies.
They receive no specific grants, but the Ministry has a programme of
providing financial assistance for various purposes like sending teams abroad
for training, participation in international tournaments, holding international
tournaments, purchasing sports equipments, engaging foreign coaches etc. The Board of Control for Cricket in India
(BCCI), the richest among the federations, however, is not taking any financial
assistance
Pertinently, all sports bodies avail the facilities like
stadiums et al provided by the State Governments. They also get tax concessions, land at
concessional rate for construction of stadiums. The players trained and
selected by the federations participate in international events where they
represent the country and not their respective federations. This very fact makes the function of these
federations a public matter and not private and hence accountable to the
people.
In addition, sports come under the State List in the
distribution of powers under the Constitution.
At the Centre, the Sports Department was created in 1982 as part of the
Education Ministry and was made a
full-fledged Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports in 2000. Also, a National Sports Policy was adopted in
1984 on the eve of the Asian Games and this was re-formulated in 2001 with the
twin objective of promoting excellence and widening the sport base.
Importantly, this policy has expressly recognised that the
management and development of sports are functions of the Indian Olympic
Association and the National Sports Federations, and has stated that they have
to “demonstrate orientation towards achievement of results and ensure tangible
progress in the field of sports.”
Keeping this in view, the policy envisages framing model bye-laws and
organisational structures in consultation with the federations and with due
regard to the Olympic Charter so as to “make the functioning of the
federations/associations transparent, professional, and accountable.”
It is, therefore, necessary to remind ourselves that
transparency and accountability in the sports federations are not any new
concepts introduced by the present Ministry, but are the accepted national
policy for over a decade. Indeed, what is significant is that while the 1984
policy merely mentions encouragement to sports bodies, the need for specific
talk about transparency and accountability arose by 2000.
Clearly, the rejected Bill of 2011 seeks to implement only
an accepted policy prescription. Vetoed
by Ministers who double up as active members of sports federations. It is also
argued that only organiations funded by various State Governments should be
brought under the RTI Act and made accountable, and that those federations not
getting any aid, particularly the BCCI, should remain fully autonomous and
cannot be made accountable to the public for its accounts or earnings.
Significantly, this is a misnomer. As in reality, no sports
body in India
lives in isolation without the support of the Government and the public. Recall, in a litigation in 2005 the Supreme
Court had observed that the functions performed by autonomous sporting bodies
are in the nature of public functions which raise wide public interest, and
therefore, fall in the ambit of writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
True, it can be argued that sports federations need to have
freedom in conducting sports as an expert body.
But, when players play for the country in international tournaments this
freedom cannot obviously be absolute. It must be subject to rules and
procedures laid down by the Government in important matters like selection of
players, as such competitions are matters of the country’s international
interests and thus, fall under entries 10 and 13 of Union List in the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution. Hence, it
seems impracticable to fully privatise sports bodies as demanded by some sports
organisations.
In fact, in many countries sports bodies are increasingly
coming under judicial supervision and losing their autonomy gradually. While
sports and games should be free to frame and administer their laws and rules,
sports federations have to be subject to some Government, that is, public
control.
Needless to say, the scope of sports, particularly spectator
sports is expanding. Today, some sports
provide entertainment (cricket’s Indian Premier League, IPL) for many it is a
commercial venture; not a few promotes tourism (the F1 racing spectacle in
Greater Noida next month) for others it is either an industry; has a role to
play in international relations; part of education and it has special medical
needs. As such, sports’ power and
popularity are immense. This increases
the responsibility of the authorities managing sports and sports-related
functions.
Bluntly, there is neither institution nor a function that is
beyond the scope of social accountability.
Even family life and home management come under social regulation. However, it must be admitted that Government
control is not always a remedy for mal-administration or a guarantee for good
governance. In this age of
privatisation, enforcing Government control over sports bodies sounds
anomalous. Nor is it the object of the
draft sports Bill that stands rejected.
Undoubtedly, what is needed is popular vigilance which is
possible only when information is accessible and available and all transactions
and functioning are transparent.
Arguably, there can be no reasonable objections to this, as transparency
will free sports management from vested interests and prevent emergence
and consolidation of sports empires
and growth of sports politics. Remember, spectator sports thrive on popular
interest and the public must have the right to information. ---- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|