On and from the commencement of this Act,—
(a) the Societies, namely, the National Anti-Doping Agency and the National Dope Testing Laboratory shall stand dissolved;
(b) any reference to the Society in any contract or other instrument shall be deemed as a reference to the National Anti-Doping Agency or the National Dope Testing Laboratory, as the case may be, established under this Act;
(c) all properties, movable and immovable, of or belonging to the Society shall vest in the National Anti-Doping Agency or the National Dope Testing Laboratory, as the case may be, established under this Act;
(d) all the rights and liabilities of the Society shall be transferred to, and be the rights and liabilities of, the National Anti-Doping Agency or the National Dope Testing Laboratory, as the case may be, established under this Act;
(e) every person employed by the Society, immediately before such commencement, shall hold office in the National Anti-Doping Agency or the National Dope Testing Laboratory, as the case may be, by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matters as he would have held the same if this Act had not been enacted, and shall continue to be so unless and until his employment is terminated or until such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions are duly altered by any regulations made under this Act:
Provided that if the alteration so made is not acceptable to such employee, his employment may be terminated by the National Anti-Doping Agency or the National Dope Testing Laboratory, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of the contract with the employee or, if no provision is made therein in this behalf, on payment, to him by the National Anti-Doping Agency or the National Dope Testing Laboratory, as the case may be, of compensation equivalent to three months' remuneration in case of permanent employees and one month's remuneration in the case of other employees;
26
(f) if there are any pending proceedings, including any disciplinary, arbitration, appeal or other legal proceedings, of whatever nature, by or against the Society, the same shall not get abated or discontinued by reason of the incorporation of the Society under this Act, but such proceedings may be continued or enforced by or against the National Anti-Doping Agency or the National Dope Testing Laboratory, as the case may be, in the same manner and to the same extent as it would or may have been continued or enforced by or against the society, if this Act had not been enacted;
(g) any rules and regulations made prior to such commencement, shall, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act, continue to be applicable till new rules and regulations are made under this Act.
27 1[THE SCHEDULE (See section 2A) PROVISIONS OF THE WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE, WHICH SHALL HAVE FORCE OF LAW ARTICLE 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS The purpose of Article 2 is to specify the circumstances and conduct which constitute anti-doping rule violations. Hearings in doping cases will proceed based on the assertion that one or more of these specific rules have been violated.
Athletes or other Persons shall be responsible for knowing what constitutes an anti-doping rule violation and the substances and methods which have been included on the Prohibited List.
The following constitute anti-doping rule violations:
2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample
2.1.1 It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies.
Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1.7 7 [Comment to Article 2.1.1: An anti-doping rule violation is committed under this Article without regard to an Athlete’s Fault. This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”. An Athlete’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining the Consequences of this anti-doping rule violation under Article 10. This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS.]
2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Athlete’s A Sample; or where the Athlete’s A or B Sample is split into two parts and the analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the first part of the split Sample or the Athlete waives analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample.8 8 [Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organization with Results Management responsibility may, at its discretion, choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample.]
2.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a Decision Limit is specifically identified in the Prohibited List or a Technical Document, the presence of any reported quantity of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation.
2.1.4 As an exception to the general rule of Article 2.1, the Prohibited List, International Standards, or Technical Documents may establish special criteria for reporting or the evaluation of certain Prohibited Substances.
1. Ins. by Act 26 of 2025, s. 22 (w.e.f. 16.07.2026).
28
2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method 9 9 [Comment to Article 2.2: It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2, unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, including data collected as part of the Athlete Biological Passport, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1. For example, Use may be established based upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.]
2.2.1 It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies and that no Prohibited Method is Used. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.
2.2.2 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti-doping rule violation to be committed.10 10 [Comment to Article 2.2.2: Demonstrating the “Attempted Use” of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method requires proof of intent on the Athlete’s part. The fact that intent may be required to prove this particular anti-doping rule violation does not undermine the Strict Liability principle established for violations of Article 2.1 and violations of Article
2.2 in respect of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. An Athlete’s Use of a Prohibited Substance constitutes an anti-doping rule violation unless such Substance is not prohibited Out-of-Competition and the Athlete’s Use takes place Out-of-Competition.
(However, the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Sample collected In-Competition is a violation of Article 2.1 regardless of when that Substance might have been administered.)]
2.3 Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection by an Athlete Evading Sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorized Person.11 11 [Comment to Article 2.3: For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of “evading Sample collection” if it were established that an Athlete was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing. A violation of “failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the Athlete, while “evading” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Athlete.]
2.4 Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the International Standard for Results Management, within a twelve-month period by an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool.
2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any Part of Doping Control by an Athlete or Other Person 29
2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete Support Person
2.6.1 Possession by an Athlete In -Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Out -of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition unless the Athlete establishes that the Possession is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”) granted in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.12 12 [Comment to Articles 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification would not include, for example, buying or Possessing a Prohibited Substance for purposes of giving it to a friend or relative, except under justifiable medical circumstances where that Person had a physician’s prescription, e.g., buying Insulin for a diabetic child.]
2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Person In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out -of-Competition in connection with an Athlete, Competition or training, unless the Athlete Support Person establishes that the Possession is consistent with a TUE granted to an Athlete in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.13 13[Comment to Articles 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification may include, for example,
(a) an Athlete or a team doctor carrying Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods for dealing with acute and emergency situations (e.g., an epinephrine auto-injector), or (b) an Athlete Possessing a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons shortly prior to applying for and receiving a determination on a TUE.]
2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Other Person
2.8 Administration or Attempted Administration by an Athlete or Other Person to any Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, or Administration or Attempted Administration to any Athlete Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is Prohibited Out-of-Competition
2.9 Complicity or Attempted Complicity by an Athlete or Other Person Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of intentional complicity or Attempted complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, Attempted anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article10.14.1 by another Person.14 14 [Comment to Article 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or psychological assistance.]
2.10 Prohibited Association by an Athlete or Other Person
2.10.1 Association by an Athlete or other Person subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization in a professional or sport-related capacity with any Athlete Support Person who:
2.10.1.1 If subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization, is serving a period of Ineligibility; or
2.10.1.2 If not subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization, and where Ineligibility has not been addressed in a Results Management process pursuant to the 30 Code, has been convicted or found in a criminal, disciplinary or professional proceeding to have engaged in conduct which would have constituted a violation of anti-doping rules if Code-compliant rules had been applicable to such Person. The disqualifying status of such Person shall be in force for the longer of six (6) years from the criminal, professional or disciplinary decision or the duration of the criminal, disciplinary or professional sanction imposed; or
2.10.1.3 Is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Article 2.10.1.1 or
2.10.1.2.
2.10.2 To establish a violation of Article 2.10, an Anti-Doping Organization must establish that the Athlete or other Person knew of the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status.
The burden shall be on the Athlete or other Person to establish that any association with an Athlete Support Person described in Article 2.10.1.1 or 2.10.1.2 is not in a professional or sport-related capacity and/or that such association could not have been reasonably avoided.
Anti-Doping Organizations that are aware of Athlete Support Personnel who meet the criteria described in Article 2.10.1.1, 2.10.1.2, or 2.10.1.3 shall submit that information to WADA. 15 15 [Comment to Article 2.10: Athletes and other Persons must not work with coaches, trainers, physicians or other Athlete Support Personnel who are Ineligible on account of an anti-doping rule violation or who have been criminally convicted or professionally disciplined in relation to doping. This also prohibits association with any other Athlete who is acting as a coach or Athlete Support Person while serving a period of Ineligibility.
Some examples of the types of association which are prohibited include: obtaining training, strategy, technique, nutrition or medical advice; obtaining therapy, treatment or prescriptions; providing any bodily products for analysis; or allowing the Athlete Support Person to serve as an agent or representative. Prohibited association need not involve any form of compensation.
While Article 2.10 does not require the Anti-Doping Organization to notify the Athlete or other Person about the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status, such notice, if provided, would be important evidence to establish that the Athlete or other Person knew about the disqualifying status of the Athlete Support Person.].
2.11 Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities Where such conduct does not otherwise constitute a violation of Article 2.5:
2.11.1 Any act which threatens or seeks to intimidate another Person with the intent of discouraging the Person from the good-faith reporting of information that relates to an alleged anti-doping rule violation or alleged non-compliance with the Code to WADA, an Anti-Doping Organization, law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organization.
2.11.2 Retaliation against a Person who, in good faith, has provided evidence or information that relates to an alleged anti-doping rule violation or alleged non-compliance with the Code to WADA, an Anti-Doping Organization, law enforcement, regulatory or 31 professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organization. 16 16 [Comment to Article 2.11.2: This Article is intended to protect Persons who make good faith reports, and does not protect Persons who knowingly make false reports.]
For purposes of Article 2.11, retaliation, threatening and intimidation include an act taken against such Person either because the act lacks a good faith basis or is a disproportionate response.17 17 [Comment to Article 2.11.2: Retaliation would include, for example, actions that threaten the physical or mental well-being or economic interests of the reporting Persons, their families or associates. Retaliation would not include an Anti-Doping Organization asserting in good faith an anti-doping rule violation against the reporting Person. For purposes of Article 2.11, a report is not made in good faith where the Person making the report knows the report to be false.]] 32 STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The Government of India was one of the Members of Foundation Board of the World Anti-Doping Agency from 1999 to 2002. It has signed the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation International Convention against Doping in Sport in 2005 and ratified it in November
2007. Pursuant to the ratification of the said Convention, the Government of India has established the National Dope Testing Laboratory in 2008 and the National Anti-Doping Agency in 2009 to fulfil the commitments of India thereunder. The said Convention aims to promote the prevention of, and the fight against, doping in sport for its elimination. To achieve the objectives of the Convention, each State Party undertakes to adopt appropriate measures that may include legislation, regulation, policies or administrative practices and to commit themselves to the principles of the World Anti-Doping Code as the basis for the measures provided in the said Convention.
2. It is intended to provide a statutory framework for the operation of the National Anti-Doping Agency, the National Dope Testing Laboratory and other dope testing laboratories and for creation of a National Board for Anti-Doping in Sports to strengthen anti-doping activities in sport, and to comply with the provisions of the said Convention.
3. The National Anti-Doping Bill, 2021, inter alia, seeks to—
(i) establish a National Board for Anti-Doping in Sport and provides for its composition, powers and functions;
(ii) establish the National Anti-Doping Agency to be headed by a Director General, and provides for the powers and functions of the said Agency, including the powers of investigation, levying sanctions for Anti-Doping Rule Violations, the disciplinary procedures to be adopted and the powers of inspection, sample collection and sharing and free flow of information;
(iii) establish National Dope Testing Laboratory and other dope testing laboratories;
(iv) strengthen the framework and mechanisms for carrying out the doping control programme in sports to ensure dope-free sport in India.
4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.
ANURAG SINGH THAKUR.
NEW DELHI;
The 10th December, 2021.