It was in New Delhi, at the 86th Session of the International Olympic Committee in April 1983, that the first statutes of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) were ratified. A year later, in 1984, the CAS commenced operations in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ever since its inception, the CAS has registered an exponential number of cases each year from all over the world. However, it took almost three decades for an Indian party to be involved in a case at the CAS, in 2012, and there have since been but a handful more.
Based on these figures, one might argue that Indian parties (for e.g. athletes, federations, clubs), in the context of international sports disputes, are fairly non-litigious, especially when compared with their European and North American counterparts.
However, there is compelling evidence to demonstrate that the lack of ‘Indian participation’ at the CAS could be for a number of other reasons, as discussed later (see: “Trends and Observations”).
After a brief data analysis of India at the CAS (see: “The Disputes in Numbers”), this series seeks to provide an overview of 15 decisions involving an Indian party at the CAS (see: “Case Overviews”), with concluding remarks on what these decisions tell us about the growth and development of sports dispute resolution in India (see: “Trends and Observations”).
|ADAP||NADA Anti-Doping Appeals Panel|
|ADDP||NADA Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel|
|ADRV||Anti-Doping Rule Violation|
|CAS||Court of Arbitration for Sport|
|NADA||National Anti-Doping Agency of India|
|WADA||World Anti-Doping Agency|
 J. Lindholm (2019), “The Court of Arbitration for Sport and Its Jurisprudence”, ASSER International Sports Law Series: The Hague at page 3.
 CAS 2012/A/2732 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Athletics Federation of India (AFI) & Mandeep Kaur & Jauna Murmu.