[Answered] Examine the ‘grim pattern’ of sexual misconduct in Indian sports and evaluate the adequacy of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, in addressing power imbalances between coaches and athletes. To what extent can ‘swift institutional action’ alone ensure a safe sporting ecosystem?

Introduction

Repeated sexual misconduct allegations in Indian sports, from wrestling to shooting, reveal systemic power asymmetries; the NRAI’s swift response underlines evolving governance amid reforms like the National Sports Governance Act, 2025.

The ‘Grim Pattern’ of Sexual Misconduct in Indian Sports

1. Asymmetric Power Relations: Indian sport is marked by a coach-centric ecosystem, where coaches control selection, funding, exposure, and career longevity. This creates what sociologists term “structural vulnerability”, discouraging athletes—often minors—from reporting abuse.
2. Closed and Isolated Training Environments: Residential academies, national camps, and foreign tours function as closed institutions with limited independent oversight. A 2020 investigative report on the Sports Authority of India (SAI) found accused officials continuing duties during prolonged inquiries, normalising impunity.
3. The ‘Champion’s Shield’ Phenomenon: High-performing coaches and administrators often enjoy informal immunity due to medals, political connections, or institutional prestige. The 2023 wrestlers’ protest against the then WFI president illustrated how success can override accountability.

Swift Institutional Action: The NRAI Case as a Turning Point

1. Zero-Tolerance Signalling: The NRAI’s immediate suspension of the accused coach, issuance of a show-cause notice, and activation of its Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) signal a shift from institutional inertia to precautionary governance.
2. Procedural Fairness and Due Process: The subsequent police clearance in January 2026 highlights the importance of balancing swiftness with natural justice, ensuring that safeguarding measures do not degenerate into “trial by media”.
3. Deterrence through Speed: Comparative governance studies (IOC Safe Sport Framework) show that certainty and speed of action, more than severity of punishment, deter misconduct—making NRAI’s response normatively significant.

National Sports Governance Act, 2025: Addressing Power Imbalances

1. Statutory Internal Complaints Committees: The Act mandates independent ICCs with external members across all National Sports Federations (NSFs), aligning sports governance with the POSH Act, 2013. Non-compliance now attracts derecognition, strengthening enforceability.
2. National Sports Tribunal: By creating a specialised tribunal, the Act reduces the litigation spiral and ensures faster athlete-centric justice, echoing recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee on institutional accountability.
3. Safe Sport Architecture: Following the Abhinav Bindra Panel (2025), the Act envisages permanent Safe Sport Officers, decoupled from coaching hierarchies—directly addressing conflicts of interest.

Limits of ‘Swift Action’ as a Standalone Solution

1. Reactive, Not Preventive: Suspensions post-allegation are necessary but ex post measures. Without preventive safeguards—codes of conduct, psychological screening, and continuous monitoring—misconduct merely shifts locations.
2. Cultural and Awareness Deficits: Many young athletes lack rights literacy. Studies by UNICEF on child protection in sports highlight that awareness training reduces reporting latency and long-term trauma.
3. Gender and Representation Gaps: Despite guidelines, women coaches and chaperones remain underrepresented, weakening informal support systems for female athletes during camps and tours.

Way Forward: From Crisis Response to Safe Sporting Ecosystems

1. Rights-Based Athlete Empowerment: Mandatory induction on consent, boundaries, and grievance mechanisms for all athletes.
2. Digital and External Reporting Channels: Integration with MYAS SHE-Box to bypass federation hierarchies and reduce fear of retaliation.
3. Professionalisation of Coaching: Licensing, periodic ethics audits, and debarment registers to treat coaching as a regulated profession, not a patronage-based role.

Conclusion

As Justice D.Y. Chandrachud notes, dignity is non-negotiable. Echoing President Droupadi Murmu’s call for athlete-centric governance, safety demands prevention, transparency, and accountability—beyond mere swift reactions.”