Supreme Court: While considering this appeal concerning Constitution of the All India Football Federation (AIFF), the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., approved the provisions of the Draft Constitution and directed the AIFF administration to call for a special general body meeting and adopt the draft Constitution with the modifications made in the judgment. This shall be done at the earliest, preferably within 4 weeks.
“We are of the firm opinion that the Constitution, once adopted in terms of Article 84, will mark a new beginning for Indian football and take the sport to greater heights”.
Background:
The AIFF, a National Sports Federation (NSF), was formed as the governing body of association football in the country in 1937. However, it had been observed that AIFF failed to evolve with time, took 11 years for its affiliation with the global apex body FIFA and struggled to manage Indian football efficiently. Consequently, football in India remained distributed in fragments, so much so that players were alienated from the administration and with time, politics and regionalism appeared on the centre stage.
The present matter came into being as questions were raised on the working of various sports federations and their election process and petitions were made to issue suitable directions. Amid the pendency of the writ petition, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, issued a comprehensive code amalgamating all previous guidelines and notifications in the form of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (National Sports Code/NSC). In this context, the respondent filed an interlocutory application specifically praying for a direction to postpone or stay the proposed elections to the various offices of the AIFF, as the elections were allegedly being held in violation of NSC 2011. Furthermore, the AIFF was also suspended from membership of FIFA in August 2022.
Therefore, it became imperative that administration and management of AIFF is performed by a duly elected body, this Court directed that the elections be held as soon as possible to facilitate the revocation of the suspension which has been imposed on AIFF by FIFA and the holding of the Under-17 Women’s World Cup 2022 in India. Pursuant to the Court’s order, elections were held. On 02-09-2022, the newly elected Executive Committee of the AIFF took charge and has been carrying out the functions of the AIFF to date.
In the meantime, provisions for the Draft Constitution, along with the stakeholders’ objections, were prepared. Since the objections and suggestions were extensive, the Court therefore, entrusted the task of finalising the Constitution of AIFF to former Supreme Court Judge, Justice L Nageswara Rao, in view of his experience in BCCI matters as well as a similar exercise undertaken by him under the orders of this Court in relation to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA). Justice L.N Rao prepared a report and suggested amendments to the erstwhile Constitution drafted by the CoA.
Issues for Consideration and Assessment:
Upon perusing the trajectory of the matter, the Court consideration was confined to approving or modifying the draft Constitution on the basis of the report of Justice L N Rao, coupled with the submissions and written notes of all the parties on the clauses of the draft Constitution. In the meantime, a significant development occurred with the enactment of the National Sports Governance Act 2025. The Court thus framed the following issues:
I. Should Eminent Players be in the General Body; if so, to what extent?
The Court noted that substantive composition of the organisational structure should consist of member associations, and it has been contemplated to be an ideal situation to have eminent sportspersons having voting rights. The Court opined that that the freedom of choice to form an association has not in any way been compromised by the requirement to incorporate 15 eminent players. The democratic setup of the federation is not destabilised as the elected member associates continue to hold more than 62% as the NSC 2011 under clause 3.20, which only suggests that the number of prominent sportspersons should be a minimum of 25%, which means that model provision has not prohibited a number larger than 25%.
II. What should be the Eligibility criteria to be designated an Eminent Player?
After examining the prescribed a criterion in the Draft Constitution, the Court opined that it will be reasonable to reduce the criteria suggested by Justice L N Rao, to 5 matches for men and from 2 matches for women. The Court expressed hope that such a modification will ensure a wider pool and participation by retired players who will prove themselves to be efficient administrators and guiding lights for Indian football.
III. Whether ‘Office bearers’ should be limited to President, Treasurer, Secretary?
Under Article 1.43 of the proposed draft, an office bearer shall “mean all elected members of the Executive Committee as indicated in Article 25”. Article 25.1 provides the list of office-bearers(s). State Associations had contended that as per NSC 2011, the term office bearer can only encompass President, Treasurer, and Secretary. However, the Court opined that Office bearers must be understood in the context of the functioning of the AIFF and the reform that needs to be brought about. This definition will have a direct bearing on the applicability of cooling off, the term, tenure and age limit.
IV. Whether the number of VPs should be increased to ensure regional representation?
The Court opined that opinion that the suggestion(s) made by the State Associations to increase the number of VPs to 5 would not be possible in the present statutory scheme. The Court however was inclined to accept the arguments of Counsel representing AIFF for the increase in the number of VPs to 3, which shall include one woman. The Court opined that such an amendment will enable women’s representation and, at the same time, confine the number of the executive committee to 15 members.
V. Whether public servants should be included under disqualification events?
The Court modified the provision of disqualification based on framing of charge to the standard as envisaged in BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, (2022) 19 SCC 30, “conviction followed by a sentence of imprisonment”.
On disqualification on being or becoming a Public Servant or holding any office in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from Football, except the IOA, the Court was inclined to modify the provision in Article 1.17(g) to “being a minister or government servant”. The Court opined that even if such a person is a public servant, if he or she has the necessary approval of the government, there should not be a problem under section 4(2)(e) of the newly enacted NGSA 2025. The rules and regulations applicable to a government servant provide a particular standard to be maintained. The standard requires the public servant to obtain necessary permissions. If these permissions are taken, perhaps there is no justification to restrict or disqualify a public servant altogether.
On disqualification of persons who has served as an office-bearer of any NSF from holding a post in the AIFF, the Court declined to accept respondent’s suggestion to amend Article 1.17 (h) to include situations where a person who has served as an office-bearer of any NSF shall be disqualified from holding a post in the federation.
VI. Whether ‘indirect interest’ should be retained in the definition of ‘conflict of interest’?
The Court expressed its approval for disqualifications based on indirect conflicts taking note that Articles 73.1 and 73.5 cover different fields of conflict.
VII. Should the AIFF Constitution apply to state associations?
In view of the FIFA Statute, the relevant comments of Justice L.N Rao and on analysis of the far-reaching implications of the relevant provision, the Court was not inclined to accept the argument that the AIFF Constitution ought not be extended to the state associations and local bodies. In view of the chequered history of Indian football administration, and also that governance of football undisputedly trickles down from the superstructure to the base, i.e., NSFs conform to FIFA, it is important that the state associations and local bodies conform to the NSFs.
VIII. What is the permissible extent of delegation of powers, functions, and exploitation of rights by AIFF to third parties?
Perusing Draft Articles 1.21, 63 and 1.54, the Court stated that while it was satisfied with the provision under Article 1.21, and since the term of the ongoing extended Master Rights Agreement (MRA) will expire in 2025, the Court clarified that it shall be open for the federation to enter into contractual settings, but in complete obedience to the boundary as laid down in Article 1.21. It is the only way a national federation can be held accountable towards its duty to the prosperity of the vibrant game of football.
IX. Whether promotion and relegation should form part of the AIFF Constitution?
The Court observed that as of 03-04-2025, the Indian men’s football team’s international ranking is 127. Taking into account the fact that Indian football began way back in time and also the fact that Indian sports have flourished with time, it is an opportune moment to decide that hereon, Indian football will not be played in silos. Healthy competition in Indian football shall only benefit and take the sport to new heights. The Court opined that the proposed provisions do not necessitate any amendment.
X. To what extent are BCCI judgements applicable to football?
Referring to BCCI series of judgments concerning the management and organisation of BCCI, the Court pointed out that The BCCI series of cases envisaged and embarked on a new dawn of Indian sports governance and also developed principles and best practices which can be imbibed in letter and spirit. The Court stated that present exercise is primarily about football, but on a broader level, is also an exercise to instil professionalism, efficiency, and fairness in sports administration, which shall take Indian football to greater heights. Distinguishing BCCI judgments only on the ground that BCCI is not an NSF, while AIFF is, does not yield any good.
XI. Should Amendments to the Constitution be approved by the Supreme Court?
The Court opined that it is not appropriate to have continuous monitoring of a sports federation by any forum, including the Supreme Court. Having taken up the matter and ensured that the Constitution is brought to this stage, it is necessary to take it to its logical end.
XII. Whether the current AIFF administration is a permanent or interim body?
The Court opined that the current executive committee can be treated as a permanent body which shall discharge its function in accordance with the relevant laws as well as the AIFF Constitution.
Other Important Suggestions/Directions:
On the definition and criteria of the Candidate, the Court suggested amendment in Article 11.1 requiring a candidate to be a citizen and resident of India. The Court further opined that Articles 1.11 and 25.4 relating to ‘candidate’ and the condition for a candidate for the post of AIFF office bearer be amended.
On Definition of ‘immediate family’, Article 1.32, the definition of “immediate family” or “immediate family member” does not include sibling(s). It was suggested that the word be added in the interest of resolving conflicts of interest, administrative ethics, and fairness. The Court agreed with the suggestion.
On Suspension and Resignations, the Court directed that Article 17 of the Draft Constitution be amended to include an equivalent percentage of votes for imposing the suspension.
On Executive committee and concurrent memberships, the Court reinstate clauses (b) and (c) as clauses (c) and (d) in the proposed Article 25.
On Acting President, the Court accepted that Article 25.6 be amended to include that in the absence of vice presidents, an executive committee member may be elected with a simple majority to serve as acting president till the subsequent AGM.
On disciplinary committee, the Court stated its objectives shall only be furthered if it is more inclusive, consisting of persons from varied fields, spearheaded by legal minds who will ensure due procedure in its decision and therefore suggested Article 46.1 be modified to consist of a chairperson, a deputy chairperson, and such other members as may be deemed necessary.
On Dispute Resolution and Grievance Redressal, the Court directed that the Article 51 be modified to insert a proviso stating that “Provided that when the decision would be concerning a matter having a bearing on a player’s participation in an upcoming event/competition or a case concerning a matter of expediency, the matter be taken on priority and an expeditious decision be taken, preferably within a period of 30 days”.
[All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2020, decided on 19-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Parties: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nagarkatti Kartik Uday, AOR Mr. Samar Bansal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Nath, Adv. Mr. Vedant Kapur, Adv. Ms. Jhanvi Dubey, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Hora, Adv. Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Shambo Nandy, AOR Mr. Ss Rebello, Adv. Ms. Manisha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv. Ms. Aarzu Paul, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mehra, Caveator-in-person Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sharma A.S., Adv. Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, SGI Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Swarupma Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv. Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek K Chadha, AOR Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv. Mr. Vrishank Singhania, Adv Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Mr. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Adv. Ms. Muskaan Singla, Adv. Ms. Pragya Ganjoo, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohan Naik, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Rai, AOR Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, AOR Ms. Geetanjali Das Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Nabab Singh, Adv. Mr. Raghenth Basant, Adv. Mr. M.F. Philip, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. Ajay Krishna, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek K Chadha, AOR Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv. Mr. Vrishank Singhania, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Mr. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Adv. Ms. Muskaan Singla, Adv. Ms. Pragya Ganjoo, Adv. Kotla Harshavardhan, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Raghav Kohli, Adv. Mr. N. Sai Vinod, AOR