Arbitration in Lex Sportiva: Guest post by Bedavyasa Mohanty and Jay Sayta

The following is a guest post by Bedavyasa Mohanty and Jay Sayta, both undergraduate students at National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. Jay Sayta maintains a website on gambling laws in India.

This post discusses the history, development and future of the Court of Arbitration of Sport as a mechanism of arbitrating on any issue relating to sports. The CAS arbitrates disputes of various sports ranging from physical sports like football and hockey to mind games like chess; and card games like poker. (Though it has been argued that poker is a game of considerable skill, akin to chess).

The Tribunal Arbitral du Sport or the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS), with its headquarters at Lausanne, Switzerland, was established in the year 1984 by the International Olympic Committee with the intent of serving as the ultimate authority to adjudicate on disputes relating to rights of athletes, governing bodies and various sports federations.

More on IPL Arbitration.

As we had posted earlier on the IPL arbitration earlier which can be accessed here and here, following the “appeal” by BCCI in the Bombay High Court against the stay to the termination of its contract by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the court today upheld the order passed by Retired Justice B N Srikrishna, the single arbitrator. The single judge Bench of Justice S F Vazaifdar on 14th December dismissed the appeal filed by BCCI challenging the stay granted by the arbitrator and permitted Rajasthan Royals to participate in the IPL-4 auction that is to be held on January 8 and 9.

However, the court has imposed a condition on Rajasthan Royals directing them to file an affidavit before it by January 3 specifying full details of its ownership pattern and mode of control and that the three owners are in full control of their investment companies. As per the directions of the court, Rajasthan Royals will also have to submit US$2.83 million as guarantee to the BCCI for the contract and US$ 18 million as bank guarantee for the players.
Similarly, in case of Kings XI, BCCI suffered yet another setback the very next day when its appeal to a higher bench of the Bombay High Court against the orders passed by single judge bench of Justice Shiavax Vazifdar got dismissed. A two judge bench comprising of Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Anoop Mohata ruled that the entire basis of the letter of termination issued by the BCCI to the Mohali franchise was "erroneous and flawed". Earlier, due to Justice Srikrishna rescuing himself from the arbitration proceedings, Justice Vazifdar had granted interim relief till a new arbitrator was appointed and finally disposed of the dispute, which itself could take a long time.

IPL arbitration - some updates

We had previously reported that the claims arising from the decision of the Board of Control for Cricket in India ("BCCI") to terminate the franchise agreements with Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab were moving towards arbitration. The arbitral proceedings in respect of the two teams, with Justice (Retd.) B.N. Srikrishna as the sole arbitrator in both the cases, have taken two divergent courses.


Justice Srikrishna recused himself from the arbitration in respect of the termination of the Kings XI franchise. This was consequent to his revelation that during his practice as an advocate, he had represented Bombay Dyeing,  whose owner Ness Wadia has a stake in Kings XI. The revelation was followed by a statement by the BCCI that it had 'reservations' in the matter.


In the arbitration regarding Rajasthan Royals, Justice Srikrishna has granted an interim measure staying the termination of the franchise. This will enable the team to participate in IPL 4 including the ongoing signing up of 'marquee players' which is expected to be completed by December 6 and player auctions thereafter. Further, the interim stay is to be effective for six weeks. BCCI has approached the Bombay High Court against this stay. 

Image from here under Creative Commons License 2.0

India's very own Sports Arbitration.

Here is a very interesting piece of news regarding sports arbitration. It is about Rajasthan Royals, Kings XI and BCCI seeking arbitration on IPL ouster. As is evident from this piece of news not only the parties have expressed their intentions to arbitrate but also plan to go for a growing form of ADR, “mediation”. And yes they are pretty serious about mediation as they have consulted Justice BN Srikrishna to conduct the mediation proceedings. I will follow the news and keep the readers updated about any new event.

FICCI proposes court of arbitration for sports in India

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce (FICCI) in a report titled “India’s Sports Scenario” has proposed the creation of a Court of Arbitration on the lines of the one based in Lusanne, Switzerland. This is in addition to proposing a special legislation to deal with issues like corruption in sports brought to the center-stage by the recent allegations in relation to the Commonwealth Games and Indian Premier League. A press release detailing the suggestions can be accessed here.

Mating attack on incumbent president: Court of Arbitration for Sport to hear dispute against World Chess Federation

Chess is a game of strategy. The recent developments in relation to the presidential election of the World Chess Federation appears to be an off-board extension of chessboard strategies. 

National Federations of United States, France, Germany, Switzerland and Ukraine as well as the presidential campaign of Anatoly Karpov have challenged the nomination of the incumbent President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov by Russia, Argentina and Mexico. Both the candidates have been nominated by the Russian Chess Federation on separate occasions and each challenges the validity of the other's nomination. In addition, the claimants have challenged the candidature of Beatriz Morinello, Ilyumzhinov's running mate, for the position of the Vice President, resembling what is in chess parlance called a "double attack". It is to be noted that the success of either of the challenges will disqualify Ilyumzhinov as the rules require each candidate to have a full "slate" (panel) for all the available positions and at least one member on a slate has to be a woman.

The matter will be heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on the 15th and 16th of September. 


More reports on the matter can be found here and here.