Hon.
Speaker Sir, when I go to the background of
this Bill, it has taken 20 years to frame this Bill and bring it to
the Parliament. From 1999 to 2002, the Government was one of the members of
Foundation Board of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Thereafter, the Government
signed the UNESCO Convention against doping in sports in 2005 and ratified
it in November, 2007. When we analyse the Bill, the existing anti-doping
rules were adopted by us in verbatim without taking into consideration the
realities on the ground in India.100
The Bill formulates these rules into a legislative framework. This
framework is crucial in the contemporary situation to protect the120 athletes’ rights, and at the same
time, regulate them. The Bill empowers the agencies to act on their own
belief140 to suspect any
athlete. I would like to draw the attention of the Government and
of the Ministry to the160
point that this creates an unreasonable arbitrary authority in the hands
of agency members to enter any athlete’s premises, seize any equipment, device
or substance. The Bill does not provide any clarity on the protection of
the data they procure200 from
the testing or investigating the athlete. These are missing in this Bill.
The
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports constituted a drafting committee
comprising eminent legal luminaries, prominent sports administrators,
renowned sportspersons, medical experts, and law enforcement
officers from240
investigating agencies like CBI and Narcotics Control Bureau. The Bill
addresses the recommendations of the Committee report and proposes the
amendments in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Agency Code. But the
personal data protection is missing and that is one280 of the major reasons why one feels that
this Bill has overlooked that issue. On 16th November, 2020, the300 United States Senate passed a
legislation in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Agency Code. It would
allow prosecution of doping320
offences at international sporting events in which American athletes, sponsors,
or broadcasters participate. The United Kingdom also implemented its
national anti-doping policy framed on the pillar of World Anti-Doping Agency
Code. In one particular case in India, the prohibited substance360 entered the athlete’s body via a
cosmetic product. Similarly, in case of another Indian athlete, the banned
substance entered his body by medication administered by a doctor specializing
in sports medicine. The case went to the highest level and the400 players were found at fault and were
debarred from playing for four years. In that scenario, one of the athletes420 was a tribal girl who belonged to a
backward region of the country and it cannot be fairly expected
from her to conduct research on each and every ingredient before
consuming a product. This reminds me of the 16th Lok Sabha when I raised an
issue in this House about a female athlete from my State Odisha
who is currently480 one of the
best sprinters of the country. In her case, our society was
actually moving against her. I had500
raised this issue in the House. The Sports Minister took the matter to
the highest level. India fought that case and we won. So, in that respect,
I would say that this provision will help our athletes to a great extent.
My
honourable friend mentioned about the
Standing Committee Reports. I would say that certain things are still lacking.
The560 Standing Committee
recommended that a mechanism may be laid for selection and appointment
of Chairperson and Members of the Board. This should have ensured proper
vetting of the person or persons appointed by the Central Government. Currently,
the Bill does600 not provide
for a selection process for appointments in the Board. The Committee also noted
that the Bill does not make any distinction between minor and major
athletes. The World Anti-Doping Code states that the protected class of
athletes, which640 includes
athletes below 16 years of age amongst others, may be given reduced sanctions.
The Committee recommended that the distinction between a minor and a major
athlete should be made in the Rules to ensure the protective mechanism
for minor athletes. I hope the Minister will mention about the distinction
between minor and major athletes. The Committee also recommended that700 since an athlete’s career is limited,
there is a need to ensure that the quantum of penalties is proportional to720 the degree of the violation. The
Committee noted that even after the penalty period is over and athletes have
resumed their sporting career, they are not considered for national
awards. It is recommended that since this is a policy decision,
the Government should take note of this and examine the issue. Regarding the
Laboratories, the Committee had recommended that such Laboratories should be
set up in every State and not only in Mumbai, Chennai or Kolkata. It is because
a800 large number of younger
people are moving towards sports activities.
When
we analyse the Bill, I would like to draw your attention to certain
issues. The first is the qualification of the Director General, and that is not
specified.840 It is said that it will be
notified in the Rules. Secondly, the Central Government may remove the Director
General from the office on grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity or ‘such
other ground’. This gives a large scope to the Administration or to the
Ministry or to the Government because ‘such other ground’ has a vast scope. One
can understand misdemeanour900
and misbehaviour. That also needs to be probed and the person also can explain.
But ‘such other ground’ is something which needs to be deleted from the Bill.
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 which says that960 such bodies must be independent in their
operation.
My
second point is that the Board has powers to remove the980 members of the Disciplinary Panel
and Appeal Panel on grounds which will be specified by regulations and they
are not1000 specified in
the Bill. There is no requirement of giving them an opportunity of
being heard. This will affect the independent functioning of the Panels. Madam,
I would like to mention about Clauses 14 and 15. In order to ensure an
effective and credible anti-doping system, such organisations must be
independent in their ability to make operational decisions. I would like to
mention about the qualification. The respective Acts of the regulators such as
Securities and Exchange Board of India, Telecom1080
Regulatory Authority of India, and National Medical Commission, clearly
define minimum qualification and grounds of removal of members. Giving power to
the Government to decide about the qualification through rules, and giving
discretion to decide grounds of removal will affect1120 the Director General’s independent functioning
and will go against the mandate of World Anti-Doping Agency. I would like to
talk about Clause 11 and Clause 12. Grounds for removal of a member of the
Disciplinary Panel and Hearing Panel are left to be specified in the
regulation. These grounds of removal have not been specified in the
Bill. Similarly, the Bill does not specify any requirement to give members
of the Disciplinary Panel and Appeal Panel an opportunity of being heard1200 before removing them.
Now,
I come to Clause 11 and Clause 12. The Bill specifies the grounds of removal,
such as conviction of an offence, and abuse of position, for the members of the
National Board for Anti-Doping, and they are also given an opportunity of being
heard in such matters. The Bill has not specified any requirement to
give1260 members of the
Disciplinary Panel and Appeal Panel an opportunity of being heard before
removing them. The World Anti-Doping Agency requires1280 that the members of the Hearing Panel
should provide collective expertise in relevant fields such as law, science,
medicine, and sport, and must have anti-doping experience of ten years.
However, under the Bill, none of the members of the Hearing Panel are required
to have anti-doping experience. This should be specified in the Bill. As
per the provision in Clause 11, the National Board for Anti-Doping in Sports
will constitute a Disciplinary Panel for determining consequences of violation
of anti-doping rules. This Panel will consist of one Chairperson, four
Vice-Chairpersons, and ten members, about which my honourable friend
said that it would be top-heavy. My issue is something different. In the
absence of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairpersons will form the1400 Hearing Panel. It is not clear who
among the four Vice-Chairpersons will be responsible for forming the Hearing Panel
in the absence of the Chairperson and who will make that selection. In a recent
case, the Indian athletes, who were1440
gold medallists in the Commonwealth Games, tested positive for the presence of anabolic
steroids in their urine samples. The matter turned into a dispute between
the athletes and the National Anti-Doping Agency. The National Dope Testing
Laboratory in New Delhi was given a special permission to test all substances
taken by the athletes. The Laboratory confirmed that the athletes had taken
prohibited substances. It was undisputed that their coach gave them these
tablets. It was the responsibility of the Sports Authority of India
to provide for all the supplements. However, after repeated requests, the coach
purchased bottles of these supplements. In the end, the athletes were banned
for two years. I would say that when an athlete decides to use illegal
substance, he or she is not necessarily acting alone. Coaches are
under pressure to produce high results. Unlawful practices are common in
every sport and younger athletes are easily trapped in such practices.1594
