Balancing federation autonomy with public accountability is the central challenge in sports governance in India. Analyse.

National Sports Federations (NSFs) are registered as private societies, but they do public work: they pick national teams and spend public money. The ongoing AITA case in the Delhi High Court shows that the balance between their autonomy and their accountability is still unsettled [1].

Why autonomy matters

• International norms: Global sports bodies discourage state interference. Too much government control risks international suspension.
• Expertise: Elected federations, with athletes inside them, know their sport better than ministries do. The Act requires at least 2 outstanding sportspersons and 4 women on a 15-member executive committee [2].

Why accountability is needed

• Public money: Only federations recognised by the National Sports Board can receive central funds [2].
• Governance failures: The court-appointed administrator, Justice (retd.) Gita Mittal, has alleged large-scale financial misconduct at AITA. She also says office-bearers stonewalled her requests for documents [1].

How the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 tries to balance the two

• Conditional recognition: The Board can inquire into misuse of funds and can suspend or cancel recognition [2]. Its operational rules were notified in 2026 [3].
• Internal checks: The Act requires a grievance redressal mechanism inside each federation, plus limits on age and tenure [2].

Gaps that remain

• Too much state power: The Centre can exempt any federation from the Act "in public interest", and it decides the make-up of the committee that selects Board members [2].
• No specialist forum: The National Sports Tribunal cannot hear internal disputes of federations [2]. That leaves Article 226 writ petitions in the High Courts as the remedy, which is slow. AITA's election deadline has already slipped from September 30 to November 27 [1].
• Money outside the Act's reach: The administrator wants the AITA Trust and the Delhi Lawn Tennis Association added to the case [1]. This suggests funds may be held by linked bodies that the Act does not cover.

Overall, autonomy without oversight lets misconduct grow, and oversight without autonomy hands sport to the state. Three reforms would help: bring internal disputes under the Tribunal, extend audit rules to linked trusts, and limit the exemption power. Together they would replace slow court-led fixes with lasting rules, in keeping with the constitutional value of transparent use of public resources.