The Tamil Nadu Senior Advocates Forum (TNSAF) has filed a public interest litigation petition in the Madras High Court expressing serious concern over the parliamentary trend of bypassing the jurisdiction of High Courts, despite them being an essential component of federalism, by permitting appeals against the orders passed by tribunals directly before the Supreme Court.
The forum has challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 17, 22 and 25 of the National Sports Governance Act (NSGA) of 2025 enacted with the objective of development of sports and sportspersons and to provide for resolution of sports disputes in an unified, equitable and effective manner. It has contended that the three provisions violate Articles 14, 21, 39-A, 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
First Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan on Wednesday called for a counter affidavit by the Centre within three weeks. TNSAF, represented by its convenor and senior counsel AL. Somayaji, and senior advocate E. Om Prakash had filed the PIL petition jointly. Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan took notice on behalf of the Centre.
Presenting the case before the first Bench, senior counsel Srinath Sridevan said, the NSGA was notified in the gazette on August 18, 2025 with the objective of providing for resolution of sports grievances and disputes. While appreciating the intent behind the legislation, the counsel said, the Act contemplates establishment of a National Sports Tribunal comprising a chairperson and two members.
Section 17 of the Act states that the chairperson shall be a sitting or former judge of the Supreme Court or a Chief Justice of a High Court. The members shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in sports, public administration and law. The chairperson as well as the members shall be appointed by the Centre on the recommendations of a search-cum-selection committee.
The selection committee, in turn, shall be chaired either by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge recommended by the CJI. The Union Law Secretary and Sports Secretary shall be the members of the committee which shall recommend two names for each vacancy and the Centre would take a decision on the recommendations, preferably, within three months.
Taking exception to the composition of the tribunal, Mr. Sridevan said, though the chairperson would be a judicially trained mind, he/she would be pushed to a minority by the two members whose qualification had not been clearly defined under the law but for just expecting them to be people of “eminence in public life” and “with experience in sports, public administration and law.”
He also pointed out that Section 22 of the Act requires all sports related civil cases pending before the district courts as well as the High Courts in the country to be transferred to the tribunal and Section 25 states that the orders passed by the tribunal could be taken on appeal directly to the Supreme Court thereby bypassing judicial hierarchy and violating the constitutional powers of the High Courts.
TNSAF secretary Mr. Prakash, in his affidavit, said, allowing direct appeals to the Supreme Court, circumventing the jursdiction of the High Courts, was not only violative of the constitutional provisions but also subverts the doctrine of basic structure. Therefore, the Act offends the right of access to justice and also perpetuates the ever increasing trend of tribunalisation with diluted supervision of constitutional courts.
“Further, routine appeals to the Supreme Court may result in obstruction to the constitutional role assigned to the highest court in the land. Judicial review is intrinsic to the basic structure of our Constitution. The federalistic structure of our court system cannot be bypassed by the legislature,” he said and insisted on curbing the parliamentary trend of bypassing the jurisdiction of the High Courts.
Published – December 04, 2025 05:30 am IST
