Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Demystifying India’s Paralympic movement: overview of legislation, sport governance and ground realities

  • Article
  • Published:
The International Sports Law Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With over three decades of participation in the Paralympic Games, twelve medalists and eighty-three Paralympians who have represented India, today the country’s improving success at each Paralympic event cannot be ignored. With a new disability rights law passed in 2016, athletes with disabilities are just beginning to be recognized in India as citizens who can raise the country’s profile in the sporting world. From India, there is nil research in Paralympic sport, and journalistic discourse is often focused on inspirational story reporting. Research on sport governance within this ecosystem will bring to discussion what is the governance framework that exists within the Paralympic world of newly developing countries like India. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of sport governance in India’s Paralympic movement, the country’s legislation concerning the sporting rights of persons with disabilities (PwD), and to further highlight potential gaps that plague India’s Paralympic system from further developments. Collaborative efforts between the International Paralympic Committee and the Indian Government, increased efforts to train technical officials in India and emphasis on structuring state level governance standards are some of the recommendations from this research to sustain the Paralympic movement in India.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Personal communications with Dr. Ian Brittain, a Paralympic Historian at Coventry University, UK. Dr. Brittain maintains extensive database of Paralympic history from which accurate count for number of Indian athletes at Paralympic Games was sourced.

  2. Gopal (2016), p.

  3. Abhat (2016), p.

  4. The Free Press Journal (2017).

  5. Asian News International (2016).

  6. Press Trust of India (2016).

  7. Express Web Desk (2016)

  8. The Cambridge Dictionary defines policy as, “a set of ideas or a plan of what to do in particular situations that has been agreed to officially by a group of people, a business organization, a government or a political party.”

  9. V. Arunachalam vs The Secretary and Ors (2019): W.P.No.4532 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.5117 of 2019.

  10. Rahul Mehra vs Union of India and Ors (2017): WP (C) No. 195/2010.

  11. Indian Olympic Association vs Union of India (2014): W.P. (C) 2310/2012 & CM APPL.4946 & 17545/2012.

  12. Press Trust of India as reported on 11 November 2019.

  13. Singh et al. (2020), p. 1719.

  14. Friedner (2017), p. 5.

  15. Revathi (2009).

  16. Staples (2012), p. 18.

  17. Antony (2013).

  18. Chopra (2013).

  19. Das et al. (2013).

  20. TeamUSA.org (2020). Accessed on 17 February 2020.

  21. Labuschagne (2003).

  22. Eisner (1991), p. 110.

  23. Henry and Lee (2004), p. 31.

  24. Schoenberg (2019).

  25. Lowther et al. (2016), p. 85.

  26. Karamjyoti vs Union of India and Ors (2016). Case numbers: WP(C) 6815/2016 & CM No.27978/2016.

  27. Paralympic Committee of India vs Naresh Kumar Sharma and ANR.

  28. Schoenberg’s work while not published in a peer-reviewed journal forms a critical part of this research as it is published work from the Australia India Institute about sport governance in India.

  29. Katwala (2000), p. 31.

  30. Geeraert (2015), p. 35.

  31. IPC Constitution (2020), p. 7.

  32. IPC Constitution, p. 17.

  33. Registration No: 280/94-95 dated 8, July 1994.

  34. Morgan (2015).

  35. Etchells, 2016, p.

  36. MYAS Communication numbered: F.No. 94-3/2015-SP.III.

  37. IPC Officials present in the meeting were: Xavier Gonzalez, CEO, IPC; Mike Peteres, Chief of Staff, Qayser Sachdev, NPC Services Manager; Georg Schlacteneberger.

  38. Tour report submitted to Sports Ministry by Injeti Srinivas, DG, SAI on May 31, 2015.

  39. Unpublished official communication document from the IPC addressed a newly elected PCI board.

  40. Section 15(l) of NSDCI, 2011.

  41. Conditions laid under Section 9.3 (i, iv, v) of the NSDCI, 2011.

  42. Dated 12, July, 2019 signed by M. Mahadeva, RTI Nodal Officer.

  43. No. SAI/TD/RTI/2016/49(Vol.II).

  44. No. SAI/TD/RTI/2016/49(Vol.II).

  45. A State List comprises of a list of governance areas that are primarily a State Government’s responsibility in India.

  46. Section 8.3 of NSDCI, 2011.

  47. V. Arunachalam v. The Secretary, 2019; Rahul Mehra v. Union of India and Ors, 2017; Maharashtra Archery Association v. Rahul Mehra, 2019.

  48. Foreign affairs; all matters which bring the Union into relation with any foreign country.

  49. Participation in international conferences, associations and other bodies and implementing of decisions made thereat.

  50. Section 1 of NSDCI, 2011.

  51. Section I in Annexure III of NSDCI, 2011.

  52. Sections 10.5 and 10.6 of NSDCI, 2011.

  53. From interviewing athletes with disabilities who seek anonymity to protect their right to access sport opportunities and fear repercussions if identities are revealed.

  54. Chapter III: Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

  55. Karamjyoti vs Union of India and Ors (2016): WP(C) 6815/2016 & CM No.27978/2016.

  56. No response was received from the IPC when a question was asked about the claimed credentials of this person as an IPC-qualified Technical Official.

  57. Section 6.1(c) of NSDCI, 2011.

  58. F.No. 94-3/2015-SP.III: MYAS Notification of PCI’s suspension on 9 September 2019 for lack of compliance with NSDCI 2011.

  59. RPwD Act (2016), p. 13.

  60. Brittain et al. (2019), p. 209.

  61. Section 30 and 47 of RPwD Act, 2016.

  62. Page 16 of RPwD Act, 2016.

  63. Referred to as “escorts” in the original text.

  64. No.F.94-11/2007-SP-I.

  65. Question 19 of RTI response.

  66. O’Kane (2019), p.

  67. Response to Question 7 of the RTI.

  68. A copy of the document containing this question and many others was also send to MYAS, SAI and IPC Member Relations.

  69. SAI/TC/RTI/2016/49(Vol.II).

  70. Dilip Kumar Singh’s name was mentioned multiple times in athlete and administrator interviews. When asked why athletes did not report the malpractices in sport governance to the government, Singh’s name was mentioned as the powerhouse for funding and that eventually their careers would be hurt for speaking up against him.

  71. Vasavda (2020).

References

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the inputs received for this research from experts and researchers who attended the Disability Sport Conference led by Dr. Ian Brittain at Coventry University in September 2018.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to SriPadmini Chennapragada.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chennapragada, S., Jain, S. Demystifying India’s Paralympic movement: overview of legislation, sport governance and ground realities. Int Sports Law J 20, 191–202 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-020-00168-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-020-00168-6

Keywords

Navigation