Doping

Doping in sports involves the use of prohibited substances or methods to gain an

unfair advantage over competitors. According to the World Anti-Doping Agency
(WADA), it constitutes violations outlined in Articles 2.1 through 2.11 of the World
Anti-Doping Code. This compromises the credibility of athletic achievements,
especially with media scrutiny. Financial interests, pressure for better results, media
coverage, and human nature contribute to this issue. Athletes are tempted by financial
gains and the pursuit of success, leading to unethical practices. Strict anti-doping
measures and ethical standards are crucial to combat doping in sports.

WADA
1. Founded in 1999, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is headquartered in
Montreal, Canada.
2. Established as a foundation under the initiative of the IOC, WADA garnered
support from intergovernmental organizations, governments, public authorities,
and various public and private entities dedicated to combating doping in sports.
3. Formed in accordance with the terms of the Lausanne Declaration, WADA was
created to establish an independent international anti-doping entity.
4. WADA is entrusted with the oversight of the World Anti-Doping Code, which
has been adopted by over 650 sports organizations worldwide, including
international sports federations, national anti-doping organizations, the IOC, and
the International Paralympic Committee.
5. Its primary objective is to lead a collaborative global movement aimed at
achieving doping-free sports.
6. WADA operates based on core values and principles, which include:
a. Protecting the rights of all athletes concerning anti-doping measures to uphold
the integrity of sports.
b. Developing policies, procedures, and practices that embody principles of
justice, equity, and integrity.
c. Maintaining impartiality and transparency while actively engaging with
athletes' voices and striving for organizational diversity.
d. Developing innovative and practical solutions to empower stakeholders in the
implementation of anti-doping programs.
Objectives of WADA:

 Overseeing acceptance, implementation and compliance of the Code, the core

document that glues together anti-doping policies, rules and regulations
worldwide
 Outlining preventative methods such as values-based education programs
targeted at young athletes, coaches, doctors, training and parents on the
dangers and consequences of doping
 Coordinating anti-doping activities globally through the central clearinghouse
Anti-Doping Administration & Management System (ADAMS)
 Spreading awareness about the impact of doping by interacting with athletes
and their entourage
 Working closely with government, law enforcement and Anti-Doping
Organizations (ADOs) in order to facilitate evidence gathering and
information sharing

Governance Structure:
The governance structure of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is designed to
ensure a collaborative and transparent approach to combat doping in sports. Here's an
overview of its governance framework:

1. Foundation Board
a. The Foundation Board is the supreme decision-making body of WADA.
b. It is composed of representatives from the Olympic Movement (including the
International Olympic Committee, International Paralympic Committee, and
other sports organizations) and governments.
c. The Foundation Board approves the strategic direction of WADA, including its
budget, major policies, and initiatives.
d. Decisions of the Foundation Board are made by a two-thirds majority.

2. Executive Committee
a. The Executive Committee is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations
of WADA.
b. It is elected by the Foundation Board and consists of representatives from both the
Olympic Movement and governments.
c. The Executive Committee implements the decisions of the Foundation Board and
ensures the effective management of WADA's resources.
d. It also has the authority to make decisions on urgent matters between meetings of
the Foundation Board.

3. Standing Committees
a. WADA has several standing committees that focus on specific areas of its
operations.
b. These committees include the Compliance Review Committee, Finance and
Administration Committee, Education Committee, Health, Medical and Research
Committee, and Athlete Committee, among others.
c. Each committee is composed of experts in the respective fields and provides
guidance and recommendations to the Foundation Board and Executive
Committee.

4. Regional and National Offices

a. WADA operates regional and national offices around the world to support its
activities and engage with stakeholders at the local level.
b. These offices facilitate communication and collaboration with national anti-
doping organizations, governments, and sports organizations in different regions.

5. Code Compliance Monitoring Program

a. WADA oversees a Code Compliance Monitoring Program to ensure that
signatories, including international sports federations and national anti-doping
organizations, adhere to the World Anti-Doping Code.
b. The program assesses compliance with the Code's requirements and takes
enforcement actions in cases of non-compliance.

Overall, WADA's governance structure reflects a partnership between the Olympic

Movement, governments, and other stakeholders to promote clean and fair sport. By
involving representatives from various sectors and regions, WADA aims to uphold
the integrity of sports and protect the rights of athletes worldwide.
Working of WADA
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) operates through a multifaceted approach
aimed at promoting clean and fair sport globally. Here's an overview of how WADA
works, combined with an explanation of the relevant articles or provisions within its
founding statutes and documents:

1. Setting Standards and Policies

The authority to set standards and policies is derived from the World Anti-Doping
Code itself. The Code is the fundamental document that outlines the principles and
rules governing anti-doping efforts worldwide. Specifically, Articles 4-10 of the Code
delineate WADA's responsibilities in establishing standards, ensuring compliance,
and promoting education and research.

2. Monitoring and Compliance

The Compliance Monitoring Program is mandated by Article 23 of the World Anti-
Doping Code. This article specifies the establishment of a Code Compliance
Monitoring Program to monitor compliance by stakeholders with the Code and its
International Standards. It outlines the procedures for monitoring, reporting, and
sanctioning non-compliance.

3. Education and Outreach

Article 18 of the World Anti-Doping Code emphasizes the importance of education in
the fight against doping. It requires all signatories to implement education programs
aimed at preventing doping in sport. WADA's educational initiatives are thus
supported by this provision, which underscores the need for widespread dissemination
of anti-doping information.

4. Testing and Investigations

The authority to coordinate and conduct testing activities is granted to WADA
through Article 5 of the World Anti-Doping Code. This article outlines the
responsibilities of various stakeholders, including WADA, in implementing anti-
doping programs, including testing athletes for prohibited substances. Additionally,
Article 20 provides the framework for investigations into anti-doping rule violations,
including the gathering of evidence and disciplinary proceedings.

5. Research and Development

Article 20.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code mandates WADA to support scientific
research aimed at improving anti-doping methods and technologies. This provision
underscores WADA's commitment to investing in research and development to
enhance its anti-doping efforts.

6. Athlete Support and Advocacy

The protection of athletes' rights and welfare is enshrined in various articles of the
World Anti-Doping Code, including Article 14, which outlines the rights of athletes in
the anti-doping process. Additionally, the establishment of the Athlete Committee, as
stipulated in Article 15, ensures that athletes' voices are heard in WADA's decision-
making processes.

Agencies of WADA
Question: Identify and explain the functions of the different agencies within the
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) framework, citing relevant articles of the
statutes.

1. National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs)

NADOs, as outlined in Article 23 of the World Anti-Doping Code (the "Code"), are
entrusted with the implementation of anti-doping programs at the national level. Their
functions encompass conducting doping control tests on athletes (Code, Article 23.3),
educating athletes and support personnel about anti-doping rules (Code, Article 23.1),
investigating potential doping violations (Code, Article 23.2), and enforcing sanctions
for anti-doping rule violations (Code, Article 23.8).

2. International Sports Federations (IFs)

IFs, governed by Article 14 of the Code, oversee specific sports at the international
level and are responsible for ensuring compliance with anti-doping rules. Their
functions include implementing anti-doping programs within their respective sports
(Code, Article 14.1), conducting doping control tests at competitions (Code, Article
14.3), sanctioning athletes for anti-doping rule violations (Code, Article 14.4), and
collaborating with WADA and NADOs to promote clean sport (Code, Article 14.2).

3. Accredited Laboratories
Accredited Laboratories, in accordance with Article 15 of the Code, analyze doping
control samples collected from athletes to detect prohibited substances and methods.
Their functions encompass conducting sample analysis using state-of-the-art testing
methods (Code, Article 15.1), maintaining the highest standards of quality and
accuracy (Code, Article 15.2), and reporting test results to relevant anti-doping
authorities (Code, Article 15.4).

4. Athlete Committees
Athlete Committees, established under Article 20 of the Code, represent the interests
of athletes and provide input on anti-doping policies and programs. Their functions
include advocating for athlete rights (Code, Article 20.1), participating in the
development of anti-doping policies (Code, Article 20.2), providing education and
support to athletes regarding anti-doping rules (Code, Article 20.3), and raising
awareness about clean sport principles (Code, Article 20.4).

5. Ethics Committees
Ethics Committees, as mandated by Article 21 of the Code, ensure the ethical conduct
of anti-doping activities and decision-making processes. Their functions include
reviewing and providing guidance on ethical issues related to anti-doping policies
(Code, Article 21.1), investigating allegations of misconduct or conflicts of interest
(Code, Article 21.2), and promoting transparency and integrity in anti-doping efforts
(Code, Article 21.3).

6. Compliance Review Committees

Compliance Review Committees, governed by Article 24 of the Code, assess the
compliance of signatories with the World Anti-Doping Code and International
Standards. Their functions include monitoring the implementation of anti-doping
programs by signatories (Code, Article 24.1), conducting compliance reviews and
audits (Code, Article 24.2), identifying areas of non-compliance (Code, Article 24.3),
and recommending sanctions or corrective actions as necessary (Code, Article 24.4).
The National Anti-Doping Bill, 2021

Highlights of the Bill

1. The Bill prohibits athletes, athlete support personnel, and other persons from
engaging in doping in sport. Violation of anti-doping rules may result in
disqualification of results including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes,
ineligibility to participate in a competition or event for a prescribed period, and
financial sanctions.

2. Currently, anti-doping rules are implemented by the National Anti-Doping

Agency (NADA), which was established as a society. The Bill provides for
constituting NADA as a statutory body headed by a Director General appointed
by the central government. Functions of the Agency include planning,
implementing and monitoring anti-doping activities, and investigating anti-
doping rule violations.
3. The National Board for Anti-Doping in Sports will be established to make
recommendations to the government on anti-doping regulations and compliance
with international commitments on anti-doping. The Board will oversee the
activities of NADA and issue directions to it.
4. The Board will constitute a National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel for
determining consequences of anti-doping rule violations. Further, the Board will
constitute a National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel to hear appeals against decisions
of the Disciplinary Panel.

Key Issues and Analysis

1. There are two issues related to the Director General of NADA. First, the
qualifications of the Director General are not specified in the Bill and are left to be
notified through Rules. Second, the central government may remove the Director
General from the office on grounds of misbehavior or incapacity or “such other
ground”. Leaving these provisions to the discretion of the central government may
affect the independence of the Director General. This also goes against the mandate
of the World Anti-Doping Agency that such bodies must be independent in their
 operations.

2. Under the Bill, the Board has powers to remove the members of the Disciplinary
Panel and Appeal Panel on grounds which will be specified by regulations and are not
specified in the Bill. Further, there is no requirement to give them an opportunity of
being heard. This may affect the independent functioning of these panels.

PART A: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BILL

Context

Doping is the consumption of certain prohibited substances by athletes to enhance

performance. In November, 1999 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was set
up under the International Olympic Committee. Note that WADA is recognised by
the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport (2005).[1] WADA’s
primary role is to develop, harmonise, and coordinate anti-doping regulations across
all sports and countries. It does so by ensuring proper implementation of the World
Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code) and its standards, conducting investigations into
doping incidents, conducting research on doping, and educating sportspersons and
related personnel on anti-doping regulations.WADA publishes the list of prohibited
substances at least once a year and distributes it to all the signatories. Use of
prohibited substances is exempted if needed for therapeutic use, as specified.
According to WADA, in 2019, most of the doping rule violations were committed in
bodybuilding (22%), followed by athletics (18%), cycling (14%), and weightlifting
(13%). Amongst the National Anti-Doping Organisations operating under WADA, in
2019, the maximum number of positive samples were reported in India (225 out of
4,004 samples) followed by USA (194 out of 11,213 samples), and Russia (85 out of
9,516 samples).

WADA requires countries to have a National Anti-Doping Organisation for enforcing

anti-doping rules. The anti-doping process in India is managed by the National Anti-
Doping Agency (NADA). NADA was established as an autonomous body under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 in November, 2009.[5],[6] Functions of NADA
include: (i) implementing anti-doping rules as per World Anti-Doping Code, (ii)
regulating doping control programme, (iii) conducting dope tests, and (iv) authorising
penalties in case of any violations. India does not have an anti-doping law. The
Standing Committee on Sports (2021) observed that Anti-Doping Rules are not
backed by a legislation and are open to a challenge in a court of law. [7] It
recommended the Department of Sports to bring in an anti-doping legislation in 2021-
22.

Key Features

1. Prohibition of doping: The Bill prohibits athletes, athlete support personnel

and other persons from engaging in doping in sport. Support personnel includes
the coach, trainer, manager, team staff, medical personnel, and other
persons working with or treating or assisting an athlete. These persons must
ensure that there is no violation of the following rules: (i) presence of prohibited
substances or their markers in an athlete’s body, (ii) use, attempted use or
possession of prohibited substances or methods, (iii) refusing to submit a sample,
(iv) trafficking or attempted trafficking in prohibited substances or methods, and
(v) aiding or covering up such violations. If any athlete requires a prohibited
substance or method due to a medical condition, they may apply to the National
Anti-Doping Agency for a therapeutic use exemption.

2. Consequences of violations: Anti-doping rule violation by an individual

athlete or athlete support personnel may result in: (i) disqualification of results
including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes, (ii) ineligibility to participate in
a competition or event for a prescribed period, (iii) financial sanctions, and (iv)
other consequences as may be prescribed. Consequences for team sports will be
specified by regulations. Consequences for a violation will be determined by the
National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel after a hearing.

3. National Anti-Doping Agency: Currently, anti-doping rules are implemented

by the National Anti-Doping Agency, which was established as a society. The
Bill provides for constituting this National Anti-Doping Agency as a statutory
body. It will be headed by a Director General appointed by the central
government. Functions of the Agency include: (i) planning, implementing, and
monitoring anti-doping activities, (ii) investigating anti-doping rule violations,
and (iii) promoting anti-doping research.

4. Data related to athletes and doping: The Agency will also have the power to
collect certain personal data of athletes such as: (a) sex or gender, (ii) medical
history, and (iii) whereabout information of athletes (for out of competition
testing and collection of samples). The Agency will prescribe the procedure for
collection, usage, processing, and disclosure of such personal data. It will
publicly disclose certain information such as the name of the athlete, the anti-
doping rule violated, and the consequences imposed.

5. National Board for Anti-Doping in Sports: The Bill establishes a National

Board for Anti-Doping in Sports to make recommendations to the government on
anti-doping regulation and compliance with international commitments on anti-
doping. The Board will oversee the activities of the Agency and issue directions
to it. The Board will consist of a Chairperson and two members appointed by the
central government.

6. Disciplinary and Appeal Panels: The Board will constitute a National Anti-
Doping Disciplinary Panel for determining consequences of anti-doping rule
violations. This Panel will consist of a Chairperson and four Vice-Chairpersons
(all legal experts), and ten members (medical practitioners and retired eminent
athletes).

7. The Board will also constitute a National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel to hear
appeals against: (i) refusal to grant therapeutic use exemption, (ii) imposition of
consequences for anti-doping rule violation, or (iii) any other decision as
prescribed. The Appeal Panel will consist of: (i) a Chairperson (a retired High
Court judge), (ii) a Vice-Chairperson (a legal expert), and (iii) four members
(medical practitioners and retired eminent athletes). Appeals against the decision
of the Appeal Panel will lie with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (an
international body with headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland, that settles sport
related disputes).
 8. Dope Testing Laboratories: The existing National Dope Testing Laboratory
will be deemed to be the principal dope testing laboratory. The central
government may establish more National Dope Testing Laboratories.

PART B: KEY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

Independence of NADA and the hearing and appellate panels

Independence of Director General of NADA

According to WADA, National Anti-Doping Organisations operate in public interest

and could be subject to stringent national regulations. They may also experience
external pressure from their governments and national sports bodies which could
compromise their decisions in conducting testing on the appropriate athletes,
reviewing doping rule violations, and enforcing penalties against persons found in
violation of the WADA Code.8. In order to ensure an effective and credible anti-
doping system, such organisations must be independent in their ability to make
operational decisions.8 The provisions of the Bill may not fully ensure that NADA is
independent of the central government.

Under the Bill, NADA will be headed by a Director General who will be appointed by
the central government. The qualifications and experience of the Director General
will be prescribed by the central government. That is, the qualifications of the
Director General are not specified in the Bill, and are left to be notified through Rules.
Also, the central government may remove the Director General from the office on
grounds of misbehavior or incapacity or “such other ground”. The last category
neither has been specified in the Bill nor do they have to be prescribed through Rules,
thereby giving wide discretion to the central government to remove the Director
General. Both these provisions may adversely affect the independent functioning of
the Director General.

Note that the respective Acts of some regulators such as the Securities and Exchange
Board of India, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, and the National Medical
Commission of India clearly define the minimum qualifications and grounds of
removal of members. Giving the power to the government to decide the qualifications
through Rules and giving discretion to decide grounds of removal may affect the
Director General's independent functioning and go against the mandate set by
WADA.

Grounds for removal of members of the Disciplinary and Hearing Panels left to
be specified in Regulations

WADA guidelines require an independent process for determining the consequences

of anti-doping rule violations. These include the requirement that a member of a
hearing panel pool will not be removed from his position during his term unless there
is an objective and/or overriding legal reason. Such legal reasons may include legal
inability, involvement in doping and/or criminal activities, and violation of his duties
as a member.

Under the Bill, the National Board for Anti-Doping in Sports will constitute a
Disciplinary Panel for determining the consequences of anti-doping rule violations.
The Board will also constitute an Appeal Panel to hear appeals against decisions of
the Disciplinary Panel. The Board may remove members of the Disciplinary Panel
and Appeal Panel on grounds that will be specified by Regulations issued by it. These
grounds of removal have not been specified in the Bill giving the Board the discretion
to decide the grounds of removal through Regulations. This may affect the
independent functioning of these institutions.

Note that the Bill specifies the grounds of removal (such as convicted of an offence,
and abuse of position) for members of the National Board for Anti-Doping, and they
are also given an opportunity of being heard in such matters. However, the Bill has
not specified any requirement to give members of the Disciplinary and Appeal Panels
an opportunity of being heard before removing them.

Qualifications of members of the Disciplinary and Hearing Panels may not meet
standards of the WADA

WADA guidelines require that the members of the hearing panel should provide a
collective expertise in relevant fields, such as legal (if the Chairperson does not have a
legal background), science, medicine, or sport, and must have anti-doping experience.
However, under the Bill, none of the members of the hearing panels are required to
have anti-doping experience.

Bill is not clear on which Vice Chairperson will form the hearing panel

The National Board for Anti-Doping in Sports will constitute a Disciplinary Panel for
determining consequences of anti-doping rule violations. This Panel will consist of a
Chairperson, four Vice-Chairpersons, and ten members. The Chairperson, and in his
absence “the Vice Chairperson” will form the hearing panels. It is not clear which of
the four Vice-Chairpersons will be responsible for forming the hearing panels in the
absence of the Chairperson.
Competition Law & Sports

Introduction to Competition Law and its Application in Sports

The Competition Act of 2002 marked a significant departure from the regulatory
landscape established by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP
Act), aiming to establish a comprehensive legal framework to combat anti-
competitive practices across diverse sectors, including the sports industry. The
enactment of the Competition Act heralded the establishment of the Competition
Commission of India (CCI) as the apex regulatory authority tasked with enforcing
competition law and ensuring fair competition in the Indian marketplace.

Challenges in the Sports Industry: A Focus on BCCI

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), as the preeminent regulatory body
governing cricket in the nation, has been embroiled in numerous legal disputes
concerning alleged violations of competition law. One of the seminal cases that
underscored these concerns was brought forth by the International Cricket League
(ICL) against the BCCI. Central to the dispute was the accusation of the BCCI
abusing its dominant position within the cricketing domain, thereby stifling
competition and thwarting the entry of rival leagues such as the ICL.

In its adjudication of the case, the CCI invoked Section 4 of the Competition Act,
which pertains to the abuse of dominant position. The commission meticulously
scrutinized various actions undertaken by the BCCI, including imposing barriers on
players and leagues affiliated with the ICL, which were deemed to be anticompetitive
in nature. This landmark case served as a clarion call for stringent regulatory
oversight within the sports industry to uphold the principles of fair competition and
prevent monopolistic practices from taking root.

Legal Framework: All India Chess Federation (AICF) Case Study

Another noteworthy case that exemplifies the application of competition law within
the realm of sports pertained to the All India Chess Federation (AICF). Recognized as
an enterprise under the purview of the Competition Act, the AICF found itself under
the regulatory spotlight for alleged anticompetitive practices in the organization of
chess events.

The crux of the matter revolved around allegations that the AICF imposed restrictive
conditions on participants, including prohibiting their participation in unofficial
events and mandating revenue sharing. These actions were perceived to impede
competition in the chess event organizing market, thereby necessitating intervention
from regulatory authorities to safeguard the principles of fair play and open
competition.

Pyramidal Structure of Sports Governance: Autonomy vs. Accountability

The hierarchical structure of sports governance in India, epitomized by apex bodies
such as the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) overseeing state and national
federations, presents a unique challenge in the realm of competition law enforcement.
While these governing bodies often advocate for autonomy and legal exemptions
predicated on their structural hierarchy, it is imperative to critically assess such claims
within the broader context of international standards and the overarching objective of
promoting competition and consumer welfare.

Policy Implications and Future Directions

The evolving interplay between competition law and sports law in India necessitates
proactive enforcement measures and a nuanced understanding of the intricacies
inherent within the sports industry. By holding sporting federations accountable for
anticompetitive behavior and fostering an environment conducive to fair competition
and innovation, regulatory authorities can facilitate a vibrant marketplace that benefits
athletes, fans, and stakeholders alike.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the convergence of competition law and sports law in India presents
both challenges and opportunities for regulatory authorities. By addressing issues
such as abuse of dominant position and restrictive practices, regulators can nurture a
dynamic ecosystem within the sports industry that promotes fair competition,
innovation, and the overall growth of Indian sports on the global stage. Moving
forward, sustained vigilance and collaboration between regulatory bodies and sports
organizations will be imperative to uphold the integrity and vitality of Indian sports
while safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders involved.

HEMANT SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA

FACTS:

The petitioners are chess players. In the past, they have registered themselves with All
India Chess Federation (AICF) on an annual basis. They have been participating in
chess tournaments organized by AICF, and those which AICF has authorized or
approved. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners, being amateurs, like to
play chess whenever an opportunity presents itself, even in those tournaments not
organized by AICF. Union of India has issued the revised guidelines for assistance to
National Sports Federation (NSF). Under these guidelines, it is provided that
National Sports Federations shall be fully responsible and accountable for the overall
management, direction, control, regulation, promotion, development and sponsorship
of the discipline for which they are recognized by the concerned International
Federation.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) received an information from four chess
players who were subjected to disciplinary action by All India Chess Federation
(AICF) for participation in a chess event not authorised by it. The case concerned
several stipulations of AICF on chess players, organisation of chess tournaments,
discretionary nomination of players, etc.
Subsequently, the AICF undertook investigation into the case. After a detailed
investigation by the Director General, CCI conducted further inquiry in the matter
and found AICF to enjoy dominant position in the markets for organization of
professional chess tournaments/ events in India and services of chess players in India.

ISSUE:
Whether the conduct of the AICF is anti-competitive in nature?

PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
• Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 states that, “No enterprise or group shall
abuse its dominant position.”
• Section 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act 2002 states that, “there shall be an abuse of
dominant position under sub-section (1), if an enterprise or a group indulges in
practice or practices resulting in denial of market access in any manner.”

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:
• The Petitioner contended that under the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Youth
Affairs & Sports, it is the obligation of AICF to protect the right of the players to
play chess and to oppose all organized actions which would hinder that right of the
petitioners to play chess.
• It was further contended that by reference to the aforesaid guidelines that the NSFs
are primarily responsible for judicious selection of sports persons for participation in
major international events based on merit and with the object of enhancing national
prestige and bringing glory to the country. The NSFs are expected to introduce
seeding and ranking systems which would provide an automatic and transparent
system of selection. The NSFs are also required to introduce machinery for the
redressal of players’ grievances. Such federations are also expected to evolve a
system of extensive local competitions.
• The said conduct of AICF is highly monopolistic and anti-competitive. AICF being
the internationally recognized sports federation is exploiting its dominant position to
impose such unreasonable restrictions on the rights of the players, by issuing caution
notices and by claiming that such conduct of the players is detrimental to the interest
of the sport.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:
• There is no challenge by the petitioner to the constitutional byelaws of AICF in the
present petition and even if such a challenge were to be raised, this is not the right
forum.
• Union of India does not retain any supervisory jurisdiction over AICF.
Consequently, this Court cannot issue any direction as prayed for in this petition.

JUDGEMENT:
In its order under Section 27 of the Act, CCI observed that AICF’s restriction on
chess players to participate in unauthorized events and attendant punitive
consequences restricted the movement of chess players and placed them and potential
organizers of chess tournaments in a disproportional disadvantage. Hence, such
stipulation was held as an unreasonable restriction on chess players and denial of
market access to organizers of chess events/ tournaments, in contravention of the
provisions of Section 4(1) read with 4(2)(b)(1) and Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. The
restrictions on chess players was further held to be in the nature of exclusive
distribution and refusal to deal, in contravention of Section 3(4)(c) and Section 3(4)
(d) of the Act. Accordingly, CCI directed that:
1. AICF shall cease and desist from the conducts that is found anti-competitive;
2. AICF shall lay down the process and parameters governing authorization/
sanctioning of chess tournaments. In doing so, AICF will ensure that they are
necessary to serve the interest of the sport changes and shall be applied in a fair,
transparent and equitable manner. Besides, AICF shall take all possible
measure(s) to ensure that competition is not impeded while preserving the
objective of development of chess in the country; and
3. AICF shall establish prejudice caused by a chess player before taking any
disciplinary action against him. Needless to say, the disciplinary actions taken
shall be proportional, fair and transparent. The disciplinary actions against the
Informant and other similar players shall be reviewed by AICF on these lines;
4. AICF shall file a report to the Commission on the compliance of the aforesaid
directions from (a) to (c) within a period of 60 days from the receipt of this order.
5. A penalty of INR 6.92 lakhs was also imposed on AICF for indulging into the
anti-competitive conduct