ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION versus RAHUL MEHRA & ORS.

61. In this view, we are not inclined to accept this suggestion. vi. Re: On retaining ‘indirect interest’ in the definition of ‘Conflict of interest’

62. AIFF submits that a conflict of interest, as defined in Article 73.1, should not include indirect interest. In fact, AIFF argues that while Article 73.5 adequately covers the scenarios of conflict, it renders Article 73.1 otiose and unnecessary. To appreciate the contentions, the relevant provisions are produced hereunder: “Article 73: Conflict of Interest 73.1. A Conflict of Interest may take any of the following forms as far as any individual associated with the AIFF is concerned: (a) Direct or Indirect Interest: When the AIFF or a Member or an Affiliated Unit enter into contractual arrangements with entities in which an individual concerned or his/ her relative, partner or close associate has an interest. This includes cases where family members, partners or close associates are in positions that compromise, or may be seen to compromise an individual’s participation, performance and discharge of roles. (b) Roles compromised: When the individual holds two separate or distinct posts or positions under the AIFF, the functions of which would require the one to be beholden to the other, or in opposition thereof. BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2022) 19 SCC 30. 1186 (c) Commercial conflicts: When the individual enters into endorsement contracts or other professional engagements with third parties, the discharge of which would compromise the individual’s primary obligation to the game or allow for a perception that the purity of the game stands compromised. (d) Prior relationship: When an individual has a direct or indirect independent commercial engagement with a vendor or service provider or commercial partner or broadcast partner or sponsor in the past, which is now to be engaged by or on behalf of the AIFF or its Member. (e) Position of influence: When the individual occupies a post that calls for decisions of governance, management or selection to be made, and where a friend, relative or close affiliate is in the zone of consideration or subject to such decision-making, control or management. Also, when the individual holds any stake, voting rights or power to influence the decisions of a Club / team that participates in any League(s) under AIFF. 73.5. It is clarified that no individual may occupy more than one of the following posts and/or be a part of more than one of the following at a single point of time except where prescribed under this Constitution: (a) Player (Current) (b) Team Official (c) Match Official (d) Member of the Election Committee (e) Ethics and Disputes Resolution Committee (f) Auditor (g) Service Provider (Legal, Financial, etc.) (h) Contractual entity (Broadcast partner, Commercial Partner, Sponsor, Security, Contractor, etc.)”

63. On this issue, Ld. Amici submits that the suggestion of AIFF fails to account for the fact that Articles 73.1(a) and 73.5 cover entirely [2025] 9 S.C.R.  All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. different fields. Article 73.1(a) is focused on indirect conflicts of interest, conflicts through relatives, partners, or close associates; conflicts like an Executive Committee Member’s spouse running a football coaching academy. Article 73.5, on the other hand, broadly prohibits the individual from holding two posts – a more direct conflict – and does not speak of his interest through related parties. We are in agreement with these arguments. On plain reading of both Articles 73.1 and 73.5, it is clear that both cover different fields of conflict. This Court’s judgment in BCCI has also approved of disqualifications based on indirect conflicts.28 We see no reason to arrive at a different conclusion. vii. Re: On the applicability of AIFF Constitution to State Associations

64. The state associations have vehemently opposed application of AIFF’s Constitution to state associations on multiple grounds, inter alia: a) the original Constitution of AIFF (2017) did not mandate compliance of NSC 2011 on State associations, b) Societies and Sports, fall in entries 32 and 33 of the State List (List II, 7th Schedule), respectively and an NSF’s Constitution should not bind State associations and local bodies, c) Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of NSC 2011 in Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India,29 confirming non-extension of NSC on State bodies, d) NSC is to be applied only on national sports federation, e) this Court in Constitution bench judgement of Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India30 had held that right to autonomous functioning is a part of “freedom of association” guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c). It is argued that the benefit of the very liberty shall be extended to the state associations and local sports bodies.

65. This court had the opportunity to scrutinise the arguments qua Damyanti (supra) in detail in a similar factual conspectus in BCCI-I31 wherein the Court observed that the judgment in Damyanti (supra) was inapplicable to the case of BCCI because the proposed BCCI Constitution “did not interfere with or alter the composition of the (2016) 8 SCC 535, para 35. 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2967. (1971) 1 SCC 678. (2016) 8 SCC 535. 1188 State Associations”. However, the present case of Indian Football, which benefits immensely from a pyramidical structure, is placed on a different footing than the game of cricket.

66. It shall help to extract Article 2.3 of the proposed Constitution, which reads as: “Article 2: Name, Headquarters and Affiliation Article 2.3- The AIFF is a member of FIFA, AFC and Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and is recognized as the sole National Sports Federation of India for Football by FIFA, AFC, IOA and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India. Accordingly, it is self-obliged to maintain this recognition and good standing and respect the statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA and AFC as well as the provisions of the Sports Code and all applicable laws, and to ensure that these are likewise implemented and respected by its Members”. (emphasis supplied)

67. Further, Article 15.1 puts an obligation on member associations of AIFF to conform to AIFF’s Constitution. Article 15.1 reads as under: “Article 15: Obligations of Member Associations Article 15.1 Member Associations shall ensure that their own constitutions/memorandum of association/articles of association are framed strictly in accordance with this AIFF Constitution and all applicable laws including but not limited to provisions relating to composition of governing body / executive committee, minimum representation of female players in the respective governing body/ executive committee, eligibility criteria for appointment to an executive committee and other bodies, including age and tenure restrictions and cooling off period, appointment of an electoral officer and procedure for conduct of elections as set out in Schedule III to this Constitution, prohibition of creating titular or honorary posts in Executive Committees by whatsoever name other than the Executive Committee Members, disqualification events for membership, transparency and disclosure obligations, formation of an [2025] 9 S.C.R.  All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. Ethics and Disputes Resolution Committee and related dispute resolution mechanisms including AIFF Judicial Bodies, CAS, ICAS, creation of Standing Committees, dispute resolution by way of arbitration as set out in this Constitution, etc. Members are required to get these documents verified by the AIFF every 2 (two) years”. (emphasis supplied)

68. The intervenors and other stakeholders submitted that if the provisions of the AIFF Constitution are not extended to the State associations and local sports bodies, then the loophole will be exploited by the administrators for circuitous exchange of officials, thereby bypassing well-thought-out provisions of the cooling-off period and term limits. To this effect, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rahul Mehra v. Union of India,32 wherein it was observed that the interest of a national federation in terms of a particular legal framework will not harm local/state associations if they adopt that very framework.33

69. Further, it is important to note that the pyramidical structure of Indian football makes it necessary that all the constituent units and associations lower in hierarchy must observe and implement the same level of discipline, fairness, transparency, and good governance quotients which are applied at the very top. This submission, it was 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2438 “114. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the Sports Code must be made applicable to every constituent of every NSF, including IOA as well as its constituents….Be that as it may, as a matter of Basic Principles of Good governance and International Best Practices including restrictions on age and tenure as mandated in the Olympic Charter, what is good for the parent NSF’s including IOA should also be good for their Members State/District Level Federations and/or Associations.” Accordingly, respondent No. 1/Union of India is directed not to grant recognition or any facility (monetary or otherwise) to the IOA or to any NSF and/or any of its affiliated Associations, if they refuse to comply with the Sports Code as directed by this Court.” See also, BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, (2018) 9 SCC 624 “45.1. The Registrar of Societies under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 shall upon the presentation of the said Constitution by the CEO, register the documents forthwith and report compliance by way of a report to the Secretary General of this Court within four weeks; 45.2. Upon the registration of the said Constitution of BCCI, each of the members shall undertake registration of their respective Constitutions on similar lines within a period of 30 days thereafter. A compliance certificate must be furnished to the CoA, which shall file a status report before this Court with reference to the compliance undertaken by the State Associations; and 45.3. In the event that any State Association does not undertake compliance with the abovesaid directions, the directions contained in the orders of this Court dated 7-10-2016 [BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, (2016) 10 SCC 23] and 21-10-2016 [BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, (2016) 10 SCC 231] shall revive”. (emphasis supplied) 1190 argued, needs to be appreciated also in terms of Article 10(3)(b) of the FIFA Standard Statutes, 2005 which mandate that “when a regional association applies for membership of a national football association, its application must mandatorily contain a declaration that it will always comply with the statutes, regulations, and decisions of (national association), FIFA, and (relevant confederation) and ensure that these are also respected by its own members, clubs, officials, and players”.34 In this regard, our attention was drawn to Article 20.1 of the FIFA Statute 2024, which provides as under: “20. Status of clubs, leagues and other groups of clubs 1. Clubs, leagues or any other groups affiliated to a member association shall be subordinate to and recognised by that member association. The member association’s statutes shall define the scope of authority and the rights and duties of these groups. The statutes and regulations of these groups shall be approved by the member association.”

70. It is important to note that 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. We see multiple advantages in this approach. First, the office bearer(s) of the state association will acquire with time an invaluable experience of football governance in the same manner as the institutional history of the AIFF. This will happen because the governance model of both the NSF and state associations will overlap. Compliance and application of best practices formulated in consultation with FIFA at the local levels will ensure that the sport of football remains organised, both in principle and in practice.

71. In view of the FIFA Statute, the relevant comments of Justice L N Rao and on analysis of the far-reaching implications of this provision, we are not inclined to accept the argument that the AIFF Constitution ought not be extended to the state associations and local bodies. FIFA Standard Statutes 2005, “13. The Members of X have the following obligations: a) to comply fully with the Statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA, … [abbreviation or acronym of the relevant Confederation] and X at all times and to ensure that these are also respected by its members; b) to ensure the election of its decision-making bodies; (…)” [2025] 9 S.C.R.  All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. viii. Re: AIFF and Third Parties: Extent of delegation of powers, functions, and exploitation of rights

72. FSDL suggests a few changes to the proposed Constitution. They are, namely: a) a relevant amendment to Article 1.2135 to make the definition of ‘essential aspects’ less restrictive, b) an amendment to Article 63 to expand the role of private parties in exploitation of rights under sports’ contracts, and c) also submitted that ‘promotion and relegation’ should not be a criteria to satisfy the definition of ‘seniormost top division league’, as defined under Article 1.54.

73. Before we examine the tenability of the above prayers in detail, it shall be useful to understand the context in which the FSDL’s suggestions emerge.

74. FSDL is a company, incorporated with the objective of improving and popularising football in India. On 09.12.2010, a Master Rights Agreement (‘MRA’) was entered into between FSDL and AIFF, resulting in the establishment of the Indian Super League in 2014, which, since 2019, has been India’s senior-most top division league. Under the MRA, FSDL was allegedly granted “exclusive commercial rights to the National Football Team, all football competitions organized by AIFF in India, as well as to the ISL, which include advertising rights, broadcast rights, film rights, franchise rights, merchandising rights, sponsorship rights, video rights, data rights etc”.36

75. FSDL submits that private participation in the sport of football is an internationally acclaimed concept and utilising the rights given to it under the MRA, FSDL has only furthered the growth and development of Indian football. FSDL is rather concerned that despite its contributions and achievements, the proposed Constitution will put an embargo on agreed structures of commercial arrangements by way of a prohibition. It is submitted that Constitutional provisions should not circumscribe and put fetters on the commercial wisdom of AIFF to enter into contracts suitable to its interest. In other words, commercial exploitation of sports per se cannot be said to be detrimental to the interests of sport. “1.21. “Essential Aspects” shall mean the organisation, supervision, maintenance of rules and regulations, promotion of the sport, approval of authority and scope of rights of stakeholders, preservation of the sanctity of promotion and relegation, and ensuring of compliance with FIFA/AFC statues with respect to the sport of football.” As submitted before this Court and Justice L N Rao. 1192 FSDL also relied on FIFA Statutes which, in FSDL’s understanding contemplate that “commercial rights can be utilised either by the federation exclusively (in this case, AIFF), jointly with a third party or entirely by a third party”.37 Thus, while the MRA will expire in 2025, its operation can be renewed and FSDL’s interest ought to be protected.

76. Other stakeholders have countered the above submissions, arguing that there is no objection to AIFF’s collaboration with private parties; rather, it is the extent of the collaboration and delegation of essential functions that is being sought to be regulated by the proposed Constitution. A few provisions of the MRA were highlighted to demonstrate that such abdication of responsibility by a national federation cannot be countenanced. For instance, clause 5.25 of MRA permitted FSDL to set up the senior-most league of football in India and decide on its own wisdom the “format, rules, and structure of the league and the teams and players which will compete in it”. In this view, FSDL had virtually acquired the right to commercialise each and every aspect of the new league which should not be permitted.

77. It was therefore suggested that defining essential aspects shall put in place a boundary to ensure healthy future partnerships between private players and the federation. Such boundary will fall in line with clause 6.1(b) of the NSC 2011, which proscribes delegation in the nature of MRA and rather envisages AIFF to be “fully responsible and accountable for the overall management”.38

78. In terms of the above, Ld. Amici has reflected on the suggestions in the following manner: “8.8. Regarding Article 63, FSDL first proposes the addition of the word ‘ownership’ to Article 63.1 to further clarify that ownership rights of the league will rest with AIFF; this suggestion, which only serves to clarify a pre-existent position, may be accepted. As submitted before Justice L N Rao. National Sports Development Code of India, 2011, Clause 6.1 (b) “(b) National Sports Federations: NSFs are fully responsible and accountable for the overall management, direction, control, regulation, promotion, development and sponsorship of the discipline for which they are recognized by the concerned International Federation. They are expected to discharge these responsibilities in consonance with the principles laid down in the Olympic Charter or in the charter of the Indian Olympic Association or the relevant International Federation, as the case may be while being compliant with Government guidelines applicable to NSFs.” [2025] 9 S.C.R.  All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. 8.9. FSDL additionally suggests that Article 63.3 be amended to take away a clause that says AIFF “shall not be bound by any request/demand of any third party in this regard” – language inserted to ensure that AIFF is always able to prioritize the interests of football in India over private interests. FSDL’s suggestion that this be removed to enable private participation in football is incoherent – there is no reason given why private participation cannot thrive in the presence of such a clause. This suggestion must therefore be rejected. 8.10. Lastly, FSDL suggests that Article 63.4 be amended to add “or entirely through a third party”, which would have the effect of enabling AIFF to divest itself completely of involvement – far from maintaining primacy, this could mean AIFF may have no role at all in the organization of certain competitions etc. There is already no bar on the participation of third parties – FSDL’s proposed change would serve only to allow AIFF to relieve itself completely of responsibilities it must have under the NSC, 2011. This must therefore be rejected.”39

79. Though there was agreement at the bar on FSDL’s suggestions on the addition of the word ‘ownership’ in Article 63.1, we are of the opinion that the expression is superfluous and unnecessary. It is evident that AIFF has objections to the use of the word ‘organisation’ and ‘promotion and relegation’ (which we have discussed later) in the definition of essential aspects under Article 1.21. Article 1.21, which had no equivalent in the Constitution drafted by the CoA, is in the nature of a membrane separating the rights and duties of the federation and third parties with whom the federation might enter into contract(s). On a holistic reading of the provision, we do not find it creating any harm to the private interest, except for the fact that it will impact the working of the text of the MRA. We are mindful of our duty that the task of Constitutional finalisation will pave the way into a new era of Indian football, one that is based on fairness, transparency, and accountability. While we are satisfied with the provision under Article 1.21, and we have been apprised that the Extracts, Written Submissions on behalf of Amici Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Mr. Samar Bansal. 1194 term of the ongoing extended MRA will expire in 2025, we make it clear 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. ix. Re: Promotion and Relegation in Indian Football

80. Article 1.54 of the proposed draft defines the terms ‘senior-most top division league’ as follows: Article 1.54 – “Seniormost Top Division League” shall mean the league competition owned, operated and recognized by the AIFF, that implements the principles of promotion and relegation, and meets all requirements prescribed by the AFC for being eligible to obtain a direct slot in the Asian Champions League. (emphasis supplied)

81. FSDL has objected to the words ‘operated’ and ‘that implements the principles of promotion and relegation’ and sought their deletion mainly on the grounds that the use of these words in an important provision, coupled with Articles 1.21 and 63 as discussed in the preceding section, impinges upon the autonomy of FSDL as originally secured under the MRA.

82. Many intervenors argued that the suggestions of FSDL run contrary to FIFA Statutes, which adopt the principles of promotion and relegation. Ld. Amici have supported their submission by placing reliance on Article 11 of FIFA Statutes 2024 which provides that a “club’s entitlement to take part in a domestic league championship shall depend principally on sporting merit. A club shall qualify for a domestic league championship by remaining in a certain division or by being promoted or relegated to another at the end of a season.”40 Article 11(1), FIFA Statutes 2024. [2025] 9 S.C.R.  All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors.

83. It was further highlighted that decisions adopting principles of promotion and relegation were taken way back in 2019 in a meeting between the AFC, AIFF and FSDL; however, only the principle of promotion has been introduced and not the aspect of relegation.

84. To support its case, FSDL cited the judgment of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (‘CAS’) in Miami FC v. FIFA,41 which admittedly observed that while the principles of promotion and relegation are ordinarily the norm, their implementation cannot be made compulsory for national federations which have never implemented them before. FSDL’s submissions were countered at the bar citing the 2019 decision regarding the implementation of the principles of promotion and relegation from the 2024-25 season.

85. Ld. Amici submitted that the FSDL’s reliance on Miami (supra) is misplaced as the said judgment actually held that the principle of promotion/relegation is ordinarily the norm, but may not be compulsory for those national federations which have never implemented any form of promotion/relegation and were being called upon to do so for the first time. Since ISL already permits promotion and has committed to implementing relegation as well from the 2024-25 season, the said CAS judgement is inapplicable.

86. Before deliberating on the abovementioned aspects, it is beneficial to understand the principle of promotion and relegation itself. In one academic work,42 the principle and its benefits are discussed in the following words: “Promotion and relegation serves as a means of entry into the open leagues. Any person could start his or her own team, begin competing at the bottom of the league and gain promotion to the major league over time. Entry could also be achieved by purchasing an existing minor league team and hire quality players and coaches to achieve the same result. Entry in an open league does not require approval by a franchise fee or existing team owners. (…) CAS 2017/O/5264. Jasina, John and Rotthoff, Kurt W., A Model of Promotion and Relegation in League Sports (November 1, 2009). Journal of Economics and Finance, Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 303-318, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1512144. 1196 Promotion and relegation add an additional dimension to league play that is not present in closed leagues. In order to avoid relegation, teams must play at the highest level all season long. Competition among top division teams to avoid relegation produces more spending on player talent than large market teams in a closed league. Teams in lower divisions will spend more on player talent than small-market teams in a closed league since the prospect of promotion means higher expected profit. Higher spending on player talent at each hierarchical level means that the overall quality of play will be higher in an open league. If fans derive utility from the quality of on-field play, fans of open leagues will have higher utility than fans of closed leagues.” (emphasis supplied)

87. As of 03.04.2025, the Indian men’s football team’s international ranking is 127.43 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. 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. x. Re: Applicability of principles laid down in BCCI Judgment to the present case concerning football administration

88. The judgments and orders concerning the management and organisation of BCCI had far-reaching impacts. 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. AIFF and state associations have submitted that the BCCI judgment cannot be applied to football governance because BCCI is not an NSF and therefore does not fall within the contours of NSC 2011 as well. See, World Ranking (India) <https://inside.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/IND> (last accessed on 05 June 2025). [2025] 9 S.C.R.  All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors.

89. This argument cannot be accepted for more than one reason. While the validity of NSC 2011 has been previously upheld, this Court’s order dated 03.08.2022 in the present appeals aptly clarifies that NSC 2011 must be read to effectuate its intent and purpose and not in a manner of Statute.

90. This 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. In this view, the arguments advanced by AIFF and State association are rejected. xi. Re: Amendments to the AIFF Constitution and the need for the Supreme Court to retain control

91. Article 23 of the proposed Constitution deals with the mode of amendment to the AIFF Constitution. The Article reads: “Article 23: Amendments to the Constitution 23.1. The AIFF Constitution, Schedules thereto and Regulations can be amended at a Meeting of the AIFF, provided that such provisions shall not be repealed, added to, amended or altered except when a resolution to that effect is passed and adopted by a 75% (seventy five percent) majority of the members present and entitled to vote at a Special General Meeting of the General Body convened for the purpose or at any Annual General Meeting. The quorum for any such Meeting shall be 75% of the total strength of the General Body. 23.2. Any proposals for an amendment to this Constitution must be submitted in writing by at least 3 (three) members jointly with a brief explanation to the AIFF General Secretariat by a Member or by a member of the Executive Committee 25 (twenty five) days before the date of the concerned meeting.”

92. In his suggestion to the aforesaid Article, Mr. Rahul Mehra submits that the Article be amended to provide that “no amendments to the Constitution must take effect without leave of the Hon’ble Supreme 1198 Court as mandated by BCCI-II”.44 Other intervenors have supported the suggestion and sought that Article 23 be amended to insert that “Article 23.3 – Any such amendment shall not be given effect to without the leave of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

93. In BCCI-II, this Court approved a similar suggestion by holding as under: “43. Clauses 29, 33(1), 33(2) and 45 of the draft Constitution with the modifications suggested by the Amicus Curiae read as follows: Clause 45.—These Rules and Regulations of BCCI shall not be repealed, added to, amended or altered except when passed and adopted by a 3/4th majority of the members present and entitled to vote at a Special General Meeting of the General Body convened for the purpose or at the Annual General Meeting. Any such amendment will not be given effect to without the leave of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 44. We approve the above clauses. We are emphatically of the view that once the draft Constitution has been approved by this Court, any amendment should not be given effect to without the leave of this Court.” (emphasis supplied) 94. We have considered the above submissions. The anxiety and concerns of the stakeholders that the approved Constitution might be given a go-by by the federation officials if safety valves are not put in place are justified. In this view, the suggestion regarding insertion of “Article 23.3 – Any such amendment shall not be given effect to without the leave of the Hon’ble Supreme Court” is accepted for the present. However, we are of the clear view 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. BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2018) 9 SCC 624. [2025] 9 S.C.R.  All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. xii. Re: Whether the current AIFF administration is a permanent or interim body? 95. The erstwhile Constitution drafted by the CoA contained Article 84 as the transitory provision, which provided for a fresh election after the approval of the Constitution by this Court. The said provision read: “Article 84.1. Once the AIFF Constitution is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an emergent Special General Body Meeting may be convened by any 3 Full Members with a notice of 7 days to adopt the AIFF Constitution as approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and the necessary particulars of time and date of the same will be entered in Article 85. However, in accordance with the order dated 18.05.2022 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the first Election under this Constitution will be conducted by the Committee of Administrators appointed by the Hon’ble Court.” 96. While the draft Constitution formulated by the CoA was in place, elections to the federation were conducted and the current executive committee was elected, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 03.08.2022. The said order specifically mentioned that the election was only an interim arrangement and no equity based on the 03.08.2022 order shall be claimed in the future. The relevant portion of the said order is set out in paragraph 17, which is as under: “17. For the above reasons, we order and direct that: (i) The elections to the Executive Committee of AIFF should be held expeditiously and shall be concluded in terms of the time schedule which has been indicated in the tabulated statement set out above; (ii) The elections shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the provisions of Article 26 of the draft Constitution. The persons chosen as representatives shall have to conform to Article 26. (iii) This would be an interim arrangement without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties; (iv) The interim Body would continue for a period of three months subject to further orders of this Court till the Constitution is finalized; 1200 (v) The interim Body shall not claim any equities on the basis of this order and the present arrangement would be subject to further orders; (vi) The CoA shall be apprised of the decisions of the elected Body; and (vii) (…)” (emphasis supplied) 97. The above order was modified by the order dated 22.08.2022, wherein the court issued certain directions as elections to the federation were delayed, specifically taking into account the then-commencing under-17 Women’s World Cup 2022 tournament as well as the decision of FIFA to suspend AIFF from its membership. The relevant portion of the 22.08.2022 order is as under: “11. Bearing in mind the importance of the Under-17 Women’s World Cup 2022 tournament being held in India, the following directions are issued on the IA: (i) The election programme, which was fixed in pursuance of the order dated 3 August 2022, is permitted to be modified by extending the date of election by one week; (vi) Time for the completion of the elections which were scheduled to take place on 28 August 2022 shall stand extended by a period of one week. The Returning Officers shall, within the said period, refix the modalities for the filing of nominations from the stage which was reached on 13 August 2022 and ensure that the elections are completed on schedule; 12. The above directions have been issued in modification of the previous orders of this Court 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. In the event that the above [2025] 9 S.C.R.  All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. process is not taken to its logical conclusion, the Court would consider any further order at the subsequent stage.” (emphasis supplied) 98. After the executive Committee was put in place as a result of the elections held pursuant to orders dated 03.08.2022 and 22.08.2022, the modified version of the Constitution formulated by Justice L N Rao deletes Article 84; Justice L N Rao has commented on the deletion, observing that: “…Owing to the fact that the existing Executive Committee and the General Body of the AIFF were elected following due process, the need has not been felt to immediately end their terms and to impose fresh elections. The transitory provision laid down in the draft Constitution stands deleted. The existing elected members of the Executive Committee shall stay in power and serve their permitted full term(s) of 4 (four) years, subsequent to which fresh elections shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in this amended Constitution.”45 99. Mr. Bhaichung Bhutia (intervenor), Mr. Rahul Mehra and other intervenors argue that the transitory provision should be reinstated in order to ensure that fresh elections are conducted after the approval of the Constitution by this Court. Ld. Amici has supported the suggestion, arguing, inter alia, that a) fresh elections be held as electoral college pursuant to this Court’s earlier order will witness a shift in terms of the latest draft of the Constitution, b) that the order dated 22.08.2022 only altered the schedule of elections and no comment was made regarding the arrangement being an interim arrangement as order dated 03.08.2022 envisaged, c) that there are serious irregularities and lapses committed by interim administrators. 100. Having given out serious consideration to the above arguments, we are of the opinion that even if we assume that the current AIFF is a permanent body, its functioning would always be subject to the orders passed by this Court. Though they were elected for a term of four years, their term will expire in 2026, which means that the LNR Report, para 20. 1202 current executive committee will continue only till September 2026, which is less than a year from today. 101. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion 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. 102. Other objection(s)/suggestion(s)-: Till here, we have dealt with objections to certain clauses of the draft Constitution which were specifically raised and argued before us. As regards other clauses, there is no contest in the court. However, we have noted that certain objections/suggestions do exist with respect to other clauses in written submissions filed by various parties. The Amici have compiled those objections. We will now consider them. 103. On the definition and criteria of the Candidate: Mr. Rahul Mehra submits that there is an inconsistency between Articles 1.11 and 25.4 so far as the dual requirement of citizenship and residence is concerned. While the former requires only Indian citizenship for being a candidate of the executive committee, the latter reads as “a candidate for the post of an AIFF Office-Bearer must be a citizen and resident of India”. 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. 104. Further, it is important to note that in the draft Constitution, there is no prescription of the minimum age for contesting the elections. We are of the opinion 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 to read as follows: “Article 1.11: “Candidate” is any person standing for elections to the AIFF Executive Committee who has been proposed and seconded in the manner laid down in Art. 5.2 of Schedule III to this Constitution. The candidate shall be a citizen and resident of India who has attained at least twenty-five years of age and be a voting member of AIFF’s General Body. [2025] 9 S.C.R.  All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. Article 25.4: A candidate for the post of an AIFF Office- Bearer must be a citizen and resident of India who has attained at least twenty-five years of age. Such a person shall also be a voting member of the General Body.” 105. We have introduced this in view of the fact that Section 4(2) of the NSGA 202546 prescribed twenty-five years as a condition for participating in the election. 106. We also agree with the suggestion to insert a new provision 25.4 (A) in the draft Constitution in terms of the mandate of the 4th proviso to Section 4(2) of the 2025 Act. Article 25.4 (A) will read as follows: “Article 25.4(A): A person shall not be qualified to contest for election or seek nomination to, the posts of the President or the Vice Presidents or the Treasurer, unless such person is a sportsperson of outstanding merit or, has previously served as a member for at least one full term in the Executive Committee of the AIFF or as an office bearer in its affiliate unit.” 107. Definition of ‘immediate family’: In 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. Section 4: Compliance with certain requirements by National Sports Bodies (1) (…) (2) A person shall not be qualified to contest for election or seek nomination to, the Executive Committee, unless— (a) such person is a citizen of India who has attained at least twenty-five years of age; (b) the nomination of such person is duly proposed and seconded by a voting member of the General Body; (c) such person is not declared to be of unsound mind; (d) such person complies with the International Charters and Statutes and bye-laws relating to age and term of the Executive Committee: Provided that such person shall not be more than seventy years of age on the last date of nomination for election: Provided further that any person, aged between seventy and seventy-five years, may contest elections or seek nominations, if permitted by the International Charters and Statutes and the bye-laws and in case such person is elected, he shall serve for a full term; Provided that such person, if he is a government servant, has necessary approvals from the Government, as applicable: Provided that a person shall not be qualified to contest for election or seek nomination to, the posts of the President or the Secretary General or the Treasurer, unless such person is a sportsperson of outstanding merit or, has previously served as a member for at least one full term in the Executive Committee of the National Sports Body or as the President, or the Secretary General or the Treasurer in its affiliate unit (…). (emphasis supplied) 1204 We are in agreement with the suggestion. The Article is amended accordingly. 108. Obligation of member associations: We have previously held that the AIFF Constitution can be extended to member associations and local bodies. In the same vein, it was submitted that Article 15 must include the word ‘disqualification event(s)’ as one of the domains to be looked after by the member associations, alongside age, tenure, and cooling-off period, etc. We accept the suggestion. 109. Suspension and Resignations: AIFF suggests that while Article 17 requires 75% votes to revoke a suspension, no mirror provision requiring a minimum percentage of votes for imposing the suspension in the first place is given. It is suggested that an equivalent voting requirement for suspension be given. We are of the view that such a requirement will be in the interest of fairness and certainty. It is therefore directed that the provision be amended to include an equivalent percentage of votes for imposing the suspension. 110. Executive committee and concurrent memberships: The original draft Article 25 by CoA read as under: “Article 25.3. At any given point of time: (a) (….) b) In the event a person is elected as an Office-Bearer in the Executive Committee of the AIFF and holds a position of an Office-Bearer in a Member Association, he/she shall automatically be deemed to have vacated his/her position in the Member Association. c) Similarly, in the event that a person is elected as an Office-Bearer in a Member Association and holds a position of an Office-Bearer in the Executive Committee of the AIFF, he/she shall automatically be deemed to have vacated his/her position in the Member Association. d) In case of suspension / expulsion of the Member of which the individual is a representative, the office held by its representative shall be deemed to have been vacated. e) (….)” [2025] 9 S.C.R.  All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. 111. The aforesaid clauses (b) to (d) were deleted by the Constitution formulated by Justice L N Rao with insertion of an unrelated clause (b), noting that while “no direct conflict of interest could be assumed qua clauses (b) and (c), clause (d) is an unjust disqualification given that “when a Member of General body gets elected to EC, the member is not only representing his/her member association but also acting in his administrative capacity in the EC”. 112. Some stakeholders have sought reinstatement of the deleted clauses in the latest draft of the proposed Constitution. On prima facie analysis, clauses (b) and (c) of the erstwhile provision seem very important. Firstly, they are against holding two offices at the same time. Second, they will ensure that an official at the national federation is not overworked with responsibilities at a member association and vice versa.47 In this view of the matter, we reinstate the above extract clauses (b) and (c) as clauses (c) and (d) in the proposed Article 25 of the Constitution. 113. So far, deletion of clause (d) is concerned, we find merit in the observations of Justice L N Rao with respect to its deletion. 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. We are therefore not inclined to reinstate the erstwhile clause (d) in the proposed provision. 114. Acting President: AIFF suggests that Article 25.6 be amended to “include a scenario wherein the elected Senior Vice President is also incapacitated from discharging his duties, along with the President. In the absence of such Senior Vice President, one of the other Vice Presidents or a member of the Executive Committee elected by ballot with a simple majority, could serve as Acting President, till the subsequent AGM.” We are inclined to accept the suggestion and modify the provision 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. Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535. 1206 115. Quorum: It was suggested that in Article 41.2, no business transaction pertaining to “commercial arrangements and agreements pertaining to commercial and other rights for a period of more than four years or for an amount exceeding Rs. 5,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees Five Crore)” be inserted. Such an insertion will bring Article 41.2 into consonance with Article 20.9(m),48 it is argued. We accept this suggestion. 116. Disciplinary Committee: Article 46.1 of the AIFF Constitution provides for a disciplinary committee to consist of a chairperson, a deputy chairperson, and such other members as may be deemed necessary. The provision requires all members of the committee to have a legal background. AIFF has suggested that the provision be modified to mandate a legal background only for the chairperson and deputy chairperson. It is argued that such a change will bring the provision into agreement with the structure of FIFA’s disciplinary committee.49 We find merit in the contention. The objectives of the disciplinary committee 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. In this view, we accept this suggestion. 117. Appeal Committee: On the same lines as the disciplinary committee, we are inclined to modify Article 47 to provide that only the chairperson and deputy chairperson shall be required to have a legal background. “20.9. The General Body of the AIFF shall have the following powers and functions: Subject to the provisions of this Constitution regarding manner of dealing with Rights and maintaining overall control of the AlFF over its Competitions and Rights therein, to decide regarding whether to renew existing commercial arrangements and agreements pertaining to commercial and other rights as well as and to decide regarding whether to enter into any new commercial arrangements and agreements pertaining to commercial and other rights as well as determining a transparent, judicious and equitable process for the above keeping the best interests of Football in mind. Provided that any decision regarding such agreement and/or arrangement for a period longer than 4 (four) years must be approved at an AGM/SGM by at least 75% (seventy five percent) of the Members present and eligible to vote. Further, in the event that there is any decision to be made regarding such agreement and/or arrangement exceeding amount Rs. 5,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees Five Crore), it must be approved at an AGM/SGM by at least 75% (seventy five percent) of the Members present and eligible to vote” See, generally, <https://inside.fifa.com/legal/judicial-bodies> “Disciplinary Committee (Composition) The Disciplinary Committee shall consist of a chairperson, a deputy chairperson and a specific number of other members. The chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee must be qualified to practise law. The committee shall act in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code. It shall take its decisions in the presence of at least three members. In special cases, the chairman may decide alone. The Disciplinary Committee pronounces the sanctions described in the FIFA Statutes and the FIFA Disciplinary Code on member associations, clubs, officials, players, intermediaries and licensed match agents. The disciplinary competence of the Congress and the Executive Committee with regard to the suspension and expulsion of members is reserved.” [2025] 9 S.C.R.  All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. This amendment will bring the provision into consonance with the composition of the appeal committee of FIFA.50 118. Dispute Resolution and Grievance Redressal: It was suggested that, as sports events are time sensitive for athletes, a time limit (of no more than 30 days) must be prescribed for rendering decisions by first instance and appellate bodies. Ld. Amici has supported this argument and suggested that a proviso may be inserted signifying that “when the decision would be concerning a matter of expediency, the time limit would be 30 days”. Article 51.1 of the draft Constitution provides that “Any and all disputes affecting or involving the AIFF, Full, Associate or Provisional Members, including the individual members thereof, Clubs or their members, Leagues or other Competitions, and members of such Leagues, Officials, Referees and Licensed Match Agents shall be referred by the AIFF in the first instance for hearing and redressal to the Ethics and Disputes Resolution Committee”. 119. The provision deals with various stakeholders, including individual members and disputes pertaining to competitive events. We find merit in the suggestion so far as the players’ case is concerned. We direct 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”. 120. It was further suggested that the time limit of 3 months imposed in Article 51.15 on the arbitral tribunal51 to conclude the proceedings Ibid. “Appeal Committee (Composition) The Appeal Committee is composed of a chairman, a vice- chairman and the number of members deemed necessary. The chairman and the vice-chairman must have legal training. The Commission shall act in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code Decisions are made in the presence of at least three members. In special cases, the chairman may decide alone. The Appeals Committee is responsible for the handling of appeals against decisions of the Disciplinary Commission, which FIFA regulations do not define as final. The decisions of the Appeals Committee are final and binding on all parties concerned. All rights to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) are reserved”. Article 51.15 – The Arbitral Tribunal shall make best efforts, if possible, to conclude the proceeding in summary process at the earliest within 3 (three) months from reference being so made. The conclusive award of the Tribunal shall be final and binding on all the parties including the AIFF. The seat and the venue of the Tribunal shall be at New Delhi and appropriate jurisdictional Court, namely the Delhi High Court, would have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding as per the applicable provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, as amended from time to time. 1208 be reduced to 30 days. We find merit in the suggestion and direct insertion of a proviso on a similar line of Article 51.1. The proviso shall read: “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”. 121. Schedule III: Election Bye-Laws of All India Football Federation: It was suggested that the erstwhile Article 9.2 of the third schedule drafted by CoA52 contained a provision of contesting candidates nominating their agents during polls, the latest draft of the Constitution deletes the provision of nomination and only allows contesting candidates to submit the name of such persons to the returning officer.53 The procedure for nomination remains, but the right to nominate has been extinguished. We have considered the argument and decided to restore Article 9.2 as it was drafted by CoA in its original form. 122. Conclusion: Thus, we have approved the provisions of the Constitution in the above terms. 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. 123. Before we part with the judgment, we must record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by all counsels, accompanied by young members of the bar, who argued their points with precision, passion and patience. We also record our appreciation for the invaluable assistance rendered by Ld. Amici, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Mr. Samar Bansal to this Court. Article 9.2. Each contesting candidate can nominate one person (if he/she so desires) to be present at the Poll (Polling station). All candidates must submitted the name of such person to the Returning Officer within 2 days of publication of final list of contesting candidates in Form 6 along with valid government ID proof of the same which must be carried by the representative on the polling day. Article 9.2. All candidates must submit the name of such person to the Returning Officer within 2 (two) days of publication of final list of contesting candidates in Form 6 along with valid government ID proof of the same which must be carried by the representative on the polling day. [2025] 9 S.C.R.  All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. 124. Our country is brimming with promising sporting talent which seeks suitable avenues and organisational support. We need to channelise this talent efficiently – from village fields to international platforms. 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. 125. Order accordingly. Result of the case: Directions issued. †Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey