THE NATIONAL ANTI-DOPING (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2025 MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department) New Delhi, the 18th August, 2025/Shravana 27, 1947 (Saka) The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 18th August, 2025 and is hereby published for general information:— No. 26 of 2025 [18th August, 2025.] An Act to amend the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Seventy-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:— Short title and commencement. 1. (1) This Act may be called the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Act, 2025. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Amendment of section 2. 15 of 2022. 2. Section 2 of the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) shall be numbered as sub-section (1) thereof and in sub-section (1) as so numbered,— (i) after clause (a), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:— ‘(aa) “Anti-Doping Organisation” means the World Anti-Doping Agency or a signatory to the Code which is responsible for adopting rules for initiating, implementing or enforcing any part of the doping control process and includes the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, other major event organisations that conduct testing at their events, International Federations, and the National Anti-Doping Organisations;’; (ii) in clause (b), after the word and figure “section 4”, the words “or as detailed under the Code as set out in the Schedule” shall be inserted; (iii) in clause (e), for the words “or such other person”, the words “, parent or any other person” shall be substituted; (iv) in clause (n),–– (a) for the words “up to the disposal”, the words “till the final disposal” shall be substituted; (b) after the words “Anti-Doping Rule Violation”, the words “or violation of the prohibition of participation during ineligibility or provisional suspension” shall be inserted; (v) for clause (q), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:— ‘(q) “in-competition” means the period commencing at 11:59 p.m. on the day before a competition in which the athlete is scheduled to participate till the end of such competition and the sample collection process related to such competition;’; (vi) after clause (s), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:— ‘(sa) “marker” means a compound, group of compounds or biological variable that indicates the use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method;’; (vii) after clause (t), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:— ‘(ta) “metabolite” means any substance produced by a biotransformation process;’; (viii) clause (w) shall be omitted; (ix) for clause (x), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:— ‘(x) “out-of-competition” means any period which is not in-competition;’; (x) in clause (zc), after the words “any substance”, the words “or class of substances” shall be inserted; (xi) in clause (zg), the words “and testing of samples” shall be omitted; (xii) after sub-section (1) as so numbered, the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:— “(2) The words and expressions used in this Act and not defined but defined in the Code shall have the same meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code.”. Insertion of new section 2A. 3. After section 2 of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely:— Application of World Anti-Doping Code. “2A. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, such of the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code as are set out in the Schedule shall have the force of law in India. (2) The Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule in conformity with any amendments, duly made and adopted, of the provisions of the said Code set out therein. (3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued, before each House of Parliament.”. Substitution of new section for section 4. 4. For section 4 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:— Anti-Doping Rule Violation. “4. Any one or more of the following circumstances or acts or conducts shall constitute Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the purposes of this Act, namely:— (a) the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample, unless such presence is exempted under section 5; (b) use or attempted use by an athlete of any prohibited substance or any prohibited method, unless such use is exempted under section 5; (c) evading sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to sample collection without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorised person; (d) whereabouts failures by an athlete as specified in the Code; (e) tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control by an athlete or other person; (f) possession of any prohibited substance or any prohibited method by an athlete or athlete support personnel, unless such possession is exempted under section 5; (g) trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method by an athlete or other person; (h) 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; (i) 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 the prohibition against participation during ineligibility or provisional suspension by any other person; (j) prohibited association by an athlete or other person as the Agency may specify by regulations; (k) acts by an athlete or other person to discourage or retaliate against reporting to authorities.”. Amendment of section 6. 5. In section 6 of the principal Act, in sub-section (1), for the words “individual athlete or athlete support personnel”, the words “athlete or other person” shall be substituted. Amendment of section 7. 6. In section 7 of the principal Act, in sub-section (7), after the words “International Federation”, the words “, National Olympic Committee, National Paralympic Committee” shall be inserted. Amendment of section 10. 7. In section 10 of the principal Act, sub-section (5) shall be omitted. Amendment of section 11. 8. In section 11 of the principal Act, in sub-section (2), in clause (d), after the words “who are”, the words “or have been” shall be inserted. Amendment of section 12. 9. In section 12 of the principal Act,— (a) for the word “Board”, wherever it occurs, the words “Central Government” shall be substituted; (b) for the words “specified by regulations”, wherever they occur, the word “prescribed” shall be substituted. Amendment of section 14. 10. In section 14 of the principal Act, after sub-section (6), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:–– “(7) The Director General or any other staff member of the Agency shall have operational independence from any National Sports Federation, International Federation, National Olympic Committee, National Paralympic Committee or any Government department or agency with responsibility for sport or anti-doping.”. Amendment of section 16. 11. In section 16 of the principal Act, in sub-section (3),–– (a) for clause (i), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:––– “(i) coordinating and cooperating with the Anti-Doping Organisations and National Sports Federations;”; (b) in clause (k), the word “Other” shall be omitted. Amendment of section 17. 12. In section 17 of the principal Act, for the words “Therapeutic Exemption”, the words “Therapeutic Use Exemption” shall be substituted. Amendment of section 19. 2 of 1974. 46 of 2023. 13. In section 19 of the principal Act, for the words and figures “the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”, the words and figures “the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023” shall be substituted. Substitution of new section for section 20. 14. For section 20 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:–– Power of collecting samples and testing. “20. Notwithstanding the power of the Agency to direct the collection of samples of an athlete at any time and at any place, if the Agency has reasons to believe that an athlete has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation, it shall require such athlete to submit samples for testing, in accordance with such procedure and in such manner, as may be specified by regulations.”. Substitution of new section for section 21. 15. For section 21 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:–– Result Management process. “21. (1) After receiving an adverse report from a dope testing laboratory indicating presence of any prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in the sample of an athlete or evidence of the use of a prohibited method, the Agency shall carry out initial examination of the report in such manner as may be specified by regulations and verify, if Therapeutic Use Exemption has been granted to such athlete in respect of such substance or if there has been any departure from the International Standard for Laboratories or International Standard for Testing and Investigations that may have caused the adverse analytical finding or if it is apparent that the adverse analytical finding was caused by an ingestion of the relevant prohibited substance through a permitted route. (2) Where, after examination and verification under sub-section (1), the Agency is satisfied that no Therapeutic Use Exemption has been granted to the athlete and that there has been no departure from the International Standard for Laboratories or International Standard for Testing and Investigations that may have caused the adverse analytical finding or that the adverse analytical finding was not caused by an ingestion of the relevant prohibited substance through a permitted route, it shall take such actions in such manner, as may be specified by regulations.”. Amendment of section 23. 16. In section 23 of the principal Act,— (a) for the words “specified by regulations”, wherever they occur, the word “prescribed” shall be substituted; (b) in sub-section (2), for the words “regulations as may be made by the Board”, the words “rules as may be made by the Central Government” shall be substituted; (c) for sub-section (9) and the Explanation, the following sub-sections and Explanation shall be substituted, namely:— ‘(9) The World Anti-Doping Agency, the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee and the concerned International Federation may prefer an appeal against the decision of the Appeal Panel to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, in accordance with the rules of the Court of Arbitration for Sport and the Code. (10) Where the case involves international level athlete or international events,— (a) such athlete or other person who is subject to the decision being appealed; (b) the National Anti-Doping Agency; (c) the International Federation; (d) the World Anti-Doping Agency; and (e) the International Olympic Committee or the International Paralympic Committee, as the case may be, where the decision may have an effect in relation to the Olympic Games or the Paralympic Games including decisions affecting eligibility for the Olympic Games or the Paralympic Games, may appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Panel to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. (11) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) to (10), in cases where the World Anti-Doping Agency has a right to appeal under Article 13 of the Code and no appeal has been filed by any party against the final decision of the Agency, the World Anti-Doping Agency may appeal against such decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport without exhausting other remedies provided under this Act and the rules made thereunder. Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-sections (9) to (11), “Court of Arbitration for Sport” means an international body established in 1984 to settle disputes related to sport through arbitration whose headquarter is in Lausanne, Switzerland.’. Amendment of section 24. 17. In section 24 of the principal Act, after the word “Board,”, the words “ Appeal Panel,” shall be inserted. Amendment of section 26. 18. In section 26 of the principal Act,–– (a) in sub-section (2), in the proviso, for the words “may, if required,”, the word “shall” shall be substituted; (b) in sub-section (4), in clause (d), after the words “standard operative procedures”, the words “, subject to the International Standard for Laboratories” shall be inserted. Amendment of section 29. 19. In section 29 of the principal Act,–– (i) after clause (c), the following clauses shall be inserted, namely:— “(ca) the manner of constituting the Appeal Panel under sub-section (1) of section 12; (cb) the manner of appointment of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other members of the Appeal Panel and the conditions subject to which such appointments shall be made under sub-section (3) of section 12; (cc) the grounds on which a member of the Appeal Panel may be removed under sub-section (4) of section 12;”; (ii) after clause (f), the following clauses shall be inserted, namely:— “(fa) the other decisions against which an appeal may be filed, and the form and manner in which and the time within which such appeal may be filed under sub-section (1) of section 23; (fb) the procedure to be followed by the Appeal Panel under sub-section (2) of section 23; (fc) the manner of communicating the decision of the Appeal Panel under sub-section (8) of section 23;”; (iii) in clause (m), after the word and figures “section 26”, the words “, subject to the International Standard for Laboratories” shall be inserted. Amendment of section 30. 20. In section 30 of the principal Act,–– (i) clauses (e), (f) and (g) shall be omitted; (ii) clauses (l), (m) and (n) shall be omitted. Amendment of section 31. 21. In section 31 of the principal Act,— (a) in sub-section (1),–– (i) in the opening portion, for the words “for complying with the requirements of international obligations and commitments including the Code”, the words “in compliance with the international obligations and the Code, including its International Standards,” shall be substituted; (ii) in clause (j), for the words “anti-doping control”, the words “doping control” shall be substituted; (iii) in clause (m), the word “other” shall be omitted; (b) in sub-section (2),––– (i) clause (b) shall be omitted; (ii) for clause (c), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:— “(c) the prohibited association by an athlete or other person under clause (j) of section 4;”; (iii) clause (d) shall be omitted. Insertion of Schedule. 22. After section 34 of the principal Act, the following Schedule shall be inserted, namely:–– “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. 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 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 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 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.]”. |
