- Nature of Dispute
As depicted in the pie chart below, of the 15 cases examined, Indian parties have litigated four different types of cases at the CAS. The majority of these are anti-doping (11 cases). There has been one eligibility, governance, disciplinary and “other” case each.
The majority of these doping cases involve an Appeal by WADA against an earlier decision of the NADA (NADA’s internal decision-making bodies are the ADDP and the ADAP). On each occasion, WADA’s appeal was successfully upheld – resulting in a four-year ban for the athletes, who were found to have committed ADRVs in all cases.
An athlete has only opted to appeal a NADA decision on one occasion, and unsuccessfully so.
- Nature of Proceeding
Two cases were heard by ad hoc tribunals (i.e. temporary, ‘fast-track’ tribunals responsible for resolving disputes during major sporting events), one at the 2014 Asian Games and the other at the 2016 Olympics.
- Nature of Party/Litigant
As is the case with parties to CAS proceedings in general, Indian parties before the CAS have been individual athletes (18 different athletes), national sports federations (including NADA) (on 13 occasions) and clubs (1).
Indian parties have mainly been respondents in CAS proceedings (67% of the time), with either WADA or international sports federations initiating proceedings against them.
Indian cases at the CAS have involved 8 different sports thus far:
|Sport||Number of cases||% of Indian cases|
 Published decisions/accessible to the authors as of 20 February 2020.
 R. Sethna (2019), “A data analysis of the arbitrators, cases and sports at the Court of Arbitration for Sport”, LawInSport, available online: https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/a-data-analysis-of-the-arbitrators-sports-and-cases-at-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport.