Will Mark A New Beginning For Indian Football: Supreme Court Directs AIFF To Adopt Draft Constitution Within 4 Weeks

The Supreme Court has directed the administration of All India Football Federation (AIFF) to adopt the draft Constitution within a period of four weeks.

The Court was hearing Civil Appeals filed against the Order of the Delhi High Court, which set aside the results of the AIFF’s elections on grounds of non-compliance with the sports code and other regulations.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, “We direct the AIFF administration to call for a special general body meeting and adopt the draft Constitution with the modifications in this 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.”

The Bench remarked that our country is brimming with promising sporting talent which seeks suitable avenues and organisational support and we need to channelise this talent efficiently – from village fields to international platforms.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj represented the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar represented the AIFF, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy represented the State associations, Advocate Prateek Chadha represented the Karnataka State Football Association, Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari represented the Western India Football Association, Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Ritin Rai represented the Football Sports Development Limited, Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant represented the Intervenor Bhaichung Bhutia, Advocate Kotla Harshavardhan represented the Director of Delhi Football Club and Minerva Football Academy, Advocate Shivam Singh represented Shaji Prabhakaran (Intervenor), and Advocate Anitha Shenoy represented Founder and Former President of Andhra Pradesh Football Federation. Advocate Rahul Mehra was the Respondent in person and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan along with Advocate Samar Bansal were appointed as the Amicus Curiae.

Background

The AIFF, a National Sports Federation (NSF), was formed as the governing body of association football in 1937. Advocate Rahul Mehra i.e., the Respondent herein had preferred a Writ Petition raising questions on the working of various sports federations and their election process. Amidst this, the Government of India through 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 (NSC).

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. In 2012, the High Court directed the Union of India to examine the holding of AIFF’s elections and pass a reasoned order deciding if the elections are being held in consonance with the regulatory framework. In 2016, it stayed the election on the ground that the proposed election exercise violated the orders passed during the last elections in 2012. Vide the impugned Order, it set aside the results of the elections of the AIFF on grounds of non-compliance with the sports code and other regulations.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “It is high time we recognize that sporting “facilities and opportunities” are “material resources of the community”, and their organizers are “the institutions of the national life”. As “places of public resort”, sporting institutions and bodies must remain accessible, not just for pursuing sport, but also for its administration.”

Eminent Players in the General Body

The Court was of the opinion that the freedom of choice to form an association is not in any way compromised by the requirement to incorporate 15 eminent players.

“It is not probable but certain that the inclusion of eminent players, coaches, referees, and club representatives in the general body, with only further good governance, heralds transparency and fair play”, it said.

Eligibility Criteria for Eminent Players

The Court noted 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, which will ensure a wider pool and participation by retired players who will prove themselves to be efficient administrators and guiding lights for Indian football.

“Domestic experience might not yield the result sought to be achieved with the adoption of the Constitution, which is formulated to project Indian football on the international panorama”, it added.

The definition of “Office-Bearers”

The Court said that the Office bearers must be understood in the context of the functioning of the AIFF and the reform that needs to be brought about.

Number of Vice-Presidents

The Court accepted the arguments of Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar representing AIFF for the increase in the number of VPs to 3, which shall include one woman.

“We are of the opinion that such an amendment will enable women’s representation and, at the same time, confine the number of the executive committee to fifteen members”, it noted.

On the applicability of AIFF Constitution 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 provision, the Court accepted the argument that the AIFF Constitution ought not be extended to the State associations and local bodies.

AIFF and Third Parties: Extent of delegation of powers, functions, and exploitation of rights

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.

“We believe that it is the only way a national federation can be held accountable towards its duty to the prosperity of the vibrant game of football. In this view, we are not inclined to adopt FSDL’s suggestions qua Article 63 as well, which are premised and expand upon the definitional clause in Article 1.21”, it further observed.

Promotion and Relegation in Indian Football

Taking into account the fact that Indian football began way back in time and also the fact that Indian sports have flourished with time, the Court was of the view that 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. After going through the literature on the principles of promotion and relegation, the arguments of the counsels, as well as the written material placed on record, we are of the opinion that the proposed provisions do not necessitate any amendment”, it said.

Amendments to the AIFF Constitution and the need for the Supreme Court to retain control

The Court remarked 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. Our monitoring will only be that far and no further”, it added.

Whether the current AIFF administration is a permanent or interim body?

The Court held 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.

“Mr Mehra suggested that the requirement in Article 25.4 be accepted and Article 1.11 be modified accordingly. We are in agreement with the suggestion as it brings certainty and clarity to the provision. The provision is to be amended accordingly, requiring a candidate to be a citizen and resident of India”, it directed.

The Court also noted that a member of the executive committee is primarily not for taking care of her association’s interest, but rather for the AIFF at large.

“The suspension of the member association of such an elected member should not hamper her from discharging her duties as a member of the executive committee”, it said.

Moreover, the Court held 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.

Conclusion

“We believe that the Constitution of AIFF is an important structural foundation in this regard and the stakeholders of Indian sports will have an important role in ensuring that Indian football remains thrilling, competitive and value oriented and continue to make its mark in the national and international landscape”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court approved the provisions of the Constitution in the above terms and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1131)

Click here to read/download the Judgment