"Judicial intervention has become the main driver of reform in India's National Sports Federations." Critically examine, with reference to the National Sports Governance Act, 2025.

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 set up a National Sports Board and a National Sports Tribunal to regulate federations [2]. Even so, the reform of the All India Tennis Association (AITA) is going ahead under Delhi High Court supervision [1]. The statement is largely true so far, but the Act is meant to change that.

Why courts drive reform

• Writ jurisdiction (Article 226): federations select national teams, which is a public function, so High Courts can review them.
• Athletes go to court: petitioners led by Somdev Devvarman made the court appoint an administrator, Justice (retd.) Gita Mittal. She alleged financial misconduct and said office-bearers stonewalled her requests for documents [1].
• Courts can compel: the court is considering adding the AITA Trust and DLTA as parties, and has asked AITA to respond to a request for the full July 26 EGM minutes [1].
• Gap in the law: the Tribunal cannot hear internal disputes of national sports bodies [2], so courts remain the only forum.
• Neutral referee: the Centre appoints the Board and can exempt federations "in public interest" [2]. A court avoids that kind of state control.

Limits of the claim

• Delay: AITA's election deadline moved from September 30 to November 27 [1]. Interim control leaves the sport waiting.
• Ad hoc and not expert: courts fix one federation at a time, and judges are not sports administrators.
• Courts enforce the Act's standards: AITA's new Constitution must comply with the 2025 Act [1]. The Act sets the content: executive committees of up to 15 with at least 2 outstanding sportspersons and 4 women, plus tenure caps [2].
• Pressure through recognition: only federations recognised by the Board get central funds, and the Board can inquire into misuse of funds [2]. Its rules were notified in 2026 [3], so this route has only just started.

Courts have so far been the catalyst, but the 2025 Act now supplies the rules and the enforcement tools. Three steps would make reform less dependent on litigation: bring internal disputes under the Tribunal, have the Board actively use its powers over fund misuse, and extend oversight to linked trusts. That would turn court-forced reform into accountability built into the system, in line with the constitutional ideals of transparency and good governance.