Should sports disputes go to specialised tribunals rather than constitutional courts? Critically analyse.

In September 2026, the Delhi High Court refused to order the Centre to send an athlete in the men's 94-kg jiu-jitsu category at the 20th Asian Games [1]. The case shows that a constitutional court can check whether a decision was legal, but it cannot judge sporting merit. The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 creates a National Sports Tribunal [2], so the question now matters in practice. Sports disputes should go to a tribunal first, with constitutional courts kept as a safeguard.

Case for specialised tribunals

• Expertise: The Tribunal is headed by a sitting or former Supreme Court judge or a High Court Chief Justice. Its two other members have experience in sports, public administration and law [2]. It can assess rankings and eligibility, while Article 226 review only asks whether the process was legal and fair.
• Speed and cost: It has the powers of a civil court and exists to settle sports disputes outside the regular courts [2]. Its operating rules were notified in 2026 [3].
• Consistency: A single forum stops athletes from filing in different High Courts. It can also build steady case law on selection rules, such as the Sports Ministry's top-6 "medal-chance" test [4].
• Global alignment: Appeals go to the Supreme Court, or to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) where international rules require it [2]. This fits the Olympic movement's norms.

Limitations

• Jurisdiction gaps: The Tribunal cannot hear disputes about games run by international bodies or internal disputes of national sports bodies [2]. Many disputes will still end up in court.
• Timing: Selection disputes often arise while an event is already under way, as Shubham Kumar's plea did [1]. A ruling that comes after the Games is worthless.
• Independence: The Law and Sports Secretaries sit on the committee that selects Tribunal members [2]. Yet the government is often the respondent in these cases.
• Limited reach: A tribunal cannot fix problems in policy itself, such as selection rules built only around medals [4]. Nor can it undo a nomination that was sent in late [1].
• Constitutional floor: Writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 cannot be removed. A tribunal can add to constitutional courts but cannot replace them.

Specialised tribunals give sport the expertise and speed that constitutional courts lack. To work well, the Tribunal needs an urgent track for selection disputes before events, wider jurisdiction and independent appointments. With constitutional courts kept for review, this model can deliver Article 14's promise of fair, non-arbitrary decisions to every athlete.