Frequent litigation over athlete selection shows weak sports governance in India. Examine, and suggest institutional reforms.

Athlete selection disputes often reach the courts just before multi-sport events. In September 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed jiu-jitsu athlete Shubham Kumar's plea to compete at the 20th Asian Games. The Centre had fielded no contingent in his category, and his name had been forwarded after the cut-off date [1]. Such cases largely point to weak governance, though not entirely.

How litigation exposes governance gaps

• Procedural lapses: a late nomination costs the athlete the chance. The body that forwarded the name late faces no stated penalty [1].
• Last-minute timing: disputes come up when the event is already close or under way. Kumar's plea was decided during the Games [1], when a court can rarely give effective relief.
• Multiple gatekeepers: the federations, the IOA and the Ministry each filter entries. For Hangzhou, the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports (MYAS) sanctioned 634 athletes, fewer than the IOA had recommended [4]. Lists that don't match create grievances.
• Rigid medal filter: under the 2026 criteria, athletes in non-measurable sports need a top-6 Asian finish or ranking [2]. Emerging sports face a vicious cycle: without exposure they cannot earn a ranking, and without a ranking they get no exposure.
• Wrong forum: review under Article 226 tests only whether a decision was legal. It cannot judge sporting merit.

Where the claim overstates

• The criteria are published in advance and applied uniformly [2], which meets Article 14's bar against arbitrary action. When courts uphold them, that shows rule-based governance working.
• Some litigation simply reflects athletes' growing awareness of their rights.

Institutional reforms

• Operationalise the National Sports Tribunal set up under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. It has an expert bench, the powers of a civil court, and appeals go to the Supreme Court or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) [3]. The 2026 Tribunal Rules should add a fast track for pre-event selection disputes [5].
• Federation accountability: the National Sports Board, which recognises national sports bodies [5], should make recognition depend on on-time nominations. It should also require written reasons whenever a deadline is missed.
• Early, transparent calendars: notify trials and cut-offs well in advance, and use a single digital nomination portal.
• Development quota: create a small pool of places for newly added sports, selected under separate published criteria. The medal-chance rule would still apply to the main contingent.
• Athlete voice: give athletes a place on selection panels and set up grievance cells inside federations.

Frequent selection litigation shows fragmented administration that misses deadlines more than it shows athletes being quick to sue. Moving these disputes to a fast, expert tribunal and making federations answer for procedural lapses would protect Article 14's promise of fairness. It would also help build an athlete-centred sporting system that wins medals.