Reader TTS

Following the larger jurisprudence that exists on arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism, a dispute can only be brought to the CAS if there is an arbitration agreement between the

parties designating CAS as the forum. However, under Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, any disputes related to the Olympic Games must be submitted to the CAS. Thus, by acting as per the

procedure laid down by the said Charter, Phogat has also submitted to the CAS’ jurisdiction. Additionally, all Olympic International Federations (IFs) have acknowledged the jurisdiction of

this court for at least a few types of disputes. In 1992, the CAS made a ruling in the Gundel v La Fédération Equestre Internationale case, which was later appealed to the Federal Supreme

Court of Switzerland on the grounds of CAS impartiality. The Swiss court affirmed the legitimacy of CAS as an arbitration tribunal but pointed out its numerous links with the IOC. In

response, CAS implemented reforms to enhance its independence from the IOC, both organizationally and financially. A key reform was the establishment of the "International Council of

Arbitration for Sport" (ICAS), which assumed responsibility for managing and funding CAS, thus diminishing the IOC's influence. Such prompt developments have cemented the

reputation of CAS as the end-all of sports adjudication. Thus, while it is safe to say that the decision (or award, in arbitration terms) has sealed her fate and shattered the hopes of a

billion Indians, it may be worthwhile to note that the IOA has summarily deferred in conceding to the decision and remarked that they are “exploring further legal options” and are “committed

to ensuring that Vinesh's case is heard.” _(Oiswarjya Basu is an Assistant Professor at the Jindal Global Law School.)_