ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION v. RAHUL MEHRA & ORS (2)

Citation: [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1146, 2025 INSC 1131

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.

Judgment text

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. [2025] 9 S. C. R. 1146 : 2025 INSC 1131 All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 12591-12592 of 2025) 19 September 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.

] Issue for Consideration Should Eminent Players be in the General Body; if so, to what extent; what should be the Eligibility criteria to be designated an Eminent Player; whether 'Office bearers' should be limited to President, Treasurer, Secretary; whether the number of VPs should be increased to ensure regional representation; whether public servants should be included under disqualification events; whether 'indirect interest' should be retained in the definition of 'conflict of interest'; should the All India Football Federation (AIFF) Constitution apply to state associations; what is the permissible extent of delegation of powers, functions, and exploitation of rights by AIFF to third parties; whether promotion and relegation should form part of the AIFF Constitution; to what extent are BCCI judgements applicable to football; should Amendments to the Constitution be approved by the Supreme Court; whether the current AIFF administration is a permanent or interim body.

Headnotes† Sports - National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 - Draft Constitution of the appellant-Federation (AIFF) - Objections and suggestions from relevant stakeholders - Draft approved and finalised, with few modifications - AIFF to call for a special general body meeting and adopt the draft Constitution with the modifications, preferably within 4 weeks - National Sports Governance Act, 2025. [Paras 24-122] Sports - Should Eminent Players be in the General Body, to what extent - National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 - Clauses 3. 9, 3. 10 or 3. 20: Held: 1. 1 A harmonious and conjoint reading of clauses 3. 9, 3. 10 or 3. 20 show that clause 3. 20 is essentially a carve-out from clauses 3. 9 or 3. 10, and grants voting rights to the class of persons indicated All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. therein, i. e.

, "prominent sportspersons of outstanding merit" - The substantive composition of the organisational structure should consist of member associations, and it is contemplated to be an ideal situation to have eminent sportspersons having voting rights - The percentage indicated in clause 3. 20 of the NSC 2011 is not transgressed by clause 20. 2 of the draft Constitution. [Para 33] 1. 2 The freedom of choice to form an association is not in any way compromised by the requirement to incorporate 15 eminent players - The democratic setup of the federation is not destabilised as the elected member associates certainly continue to hold more than 62% as the NSC 2011 u/clause 3.

20 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% - The inclusion of eminent players, coaches, referees, and club representatives in the general body, will only further good governance, herald transparency and fair play - The draft provision not interfered with. [Paras 35, 36] Sports - Eligibility criteria for Eminent Players - Article 1.

19 of the draft Constitution: Held: The draft Constitution prescribed a criterion - It is reasonable to reduce the eligibility criteria for an Eminent Player suggested by Justice L N Rao, to 5 matches for men and from 2 matches for women - Such 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 - Submission of AIFF qua counting domestic experience for eminence status, not accepted - 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.

[Para 40] Sports - Whether 'Office bearers' should be limited to President, Treasurer, Secretary - Definition of "Office-Bearers": Held: 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 - The inclusive definition will be consistent with the reforms that have been introduced and applied as independent measures for the vibrant working of the federation. [Para 42] 1148 Sports - Whether the number of Vice-Presidents (VPs) should be increased to ensure regional representation - Number of VPs: Held: No harm is caused by exceeding the membership of the executive committee - Both Committee of Administrators (CoA) and Justice L N Rao have taken into account the NSC 2011 and balanced it with the demands of the sport - Order of this Court dtd. 22. 08.

2022 provided that the EC of the federation will consist of 23 persons as an arrangement at that time, a higher number than the 12-person committee - Therefore, the size of the executive committee not reduced - The suggestion(s) made by the State Associations to increase the number of VPs to five would not be possible in the present statutory scheme - However, the argument of AIFF for increase in the number of VPs to 3, which shall include one woman, is accepted - Such an amendment will enable women's representation and, at the same time, confine the number of the executive committee to fifteen members. [Paras 45, 47] Sports - Public servants, if to be included under disqualification events - Article 1. 17 of the amended Constitution by Justice L N Rao: Held: The provision of disqualification based on framing of charge is modified to the standard as envisaged in the later judgement of BCCI i. e.

, "conviction followed by a sentence of imprisonment" - Further, an amendment was passed by the BCCI which was approved by this Court, restricting the disqualification from being a "minister or government servant or holding a public office" to being "a minister or government servant" - In agreement with the view of BCCI, the provision in Article 1. 17(g) modified to "being a minister or government servant" - Furthermore, 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 u/s. 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, there is no justification to restrict or disqualify a public servant altogether.

[Paras 55, 58, 59] Sports - Whether 'indirect interest' should be retained in the definition of 'conflict of interest' - AIFF submitted that All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. a conflict of interest, as defined in Article 73. 1, should not include indirect interest - It contended that while Article 73. 5 adequately covers the scenarios of conflict, it renders Article 73. 1 otiose and unnecessary - Plea of Amici that the suggestion of AIFF does not take into account that Articles 73. 1(a) and 73. 5 cover entirely different fields: Held: Art. 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 - Whereas, Art. 73. 5 broadly prohibits the individual from holding two posts - a more direct conflict - and does not speak of his interest through related parties - On plain reading of both Arts. 73. 1 and 73.

5, it is clear that both cover different fields of conflict - The judgment in BCCI has also approved of disqualifications based on indirect conflicts - No reason to arrive at a different conclusion. [Para 63] Sports - Applicability of AIFF Constitution to State Associations: Held: In view of the chequered history of Indian football administration, and also that governance of football trickles down from the superstructure to the base, i. e.

, National Sports Federations (NSFs) conform to FIFA, it is important that the state associations and local bodies conform to the NSFs - 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 - 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, the argument that the AIFF Constitution ought not be extended to the state associations and local bodies, not accepted.

[Paras 70, 71] Sports - Delegation of powers, functions, and exploitation of rights by AIFF to third parties - Permissible extent of - Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL) suggested few changes to the proposed Constitution namely, a relevant amendment to Art. 1. 21 to make the definition of 'essential aspects' less restrictive; an amendment to Art. 63 to expand the role of private parties in exploitation of rights under sports' contracts and; also submitted that 'promotion and relegation' should not be a criteria to satisfy the definition of 'seniormost top division league', as defined under Art. 1. 54: Held: Though there was agreement at the bar on FSDL's suggestions on the addition of the word 'ownership' in Article 63. 1, the expression is superfluous and unnecessary - AIFF has objections to the use of the word 'organisation' and 'promotion and relegation' in the definition of essential aspects u/Art. 1. 21 - Art. 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) - It does not create any harm to the private interest, except for the fact that it will impact the working of the text of the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) - While this Court is satisfied with the provision u/Art. 1. 21, and it has been apprised that the term of the ongoing extended MRA will expire in 2025, it is made 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 Art. 1. 21 - FSDL's suggestions qua Art. 63 as well, which are premised and expand upon the definitional clause in Art. 1. 21, not adopted.

[Para 79] Sports - Whether promotion and relegation should form part of the AIFF Constitution: Held: 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, it is held that the proposed provisions do not necessitate any amendment. [Para 87] Sports - Applicability of principles laid down in BCCI Judgment to the present case concerning football administration: Held: 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 - Distinguishing BCCI judgments only on the ground that BCCI is not an NSF, while AIFF is, does not yield any good -The arguments advanced by AIFF and State association are rejected. [Paras 88, 90] All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors.

Sports - Amendments to the AIFF Constitution, if should be approved by the Supreme Court and the need for the Supreme Court to retain control: Held: 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, 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 - Supreme Court's monitoring will only be that far and no further. [Para 94] Sports - Whether the current AIFF administration is a permanent or interim body: Held: 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.

[Para 101] Sports - Draft Constitution of the appellant-Federation (AIFF) - Certain objections/suggestions with respect to other clauses, viz. On the definition and criteria of the Candidate; Definition of 'immediate family'; Obligation of member associations; Suspension and Resignations; Executive committee and concurrent memberships; Acting President etc. - Considered. [Paras 103-121] Case Law Cited Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India [2018] 10 SCR 141 : (2019) 3 SCC 224; BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar [2016] 8 SCR 606 : (2016) 8 SCC 535; N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency [1952] 1 SCR 218 : AIR 1952 SC 64; Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh [1954] 1 SCR 892 : AIR 1954 SC 210; Dr. N. B. Khare v. Election Commission of India [1958] 1 SCR 648 : AIR 1958 SC 139; BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar [2022] 14 SCR 519 : (2022) 19 SCC 30; Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India [1971] 3 SCR 840 : (1971) 1 SCC 678; BCCI v.

Cricket Association of Bihar [2018] 9 SCR 526 : (2018) 9 SCC 624 - referred to. 1152 Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2967; Rahul Mehra v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2438 - referred to. Books and Periodicals Cited Mihir Bose, A History of Indian Cricket (London: Andre Deutsch Ltd, 1990), pp. 16-17; Boria Majumdar & Kausik Bandyopadhyay, 'A Social History of Indian Football: Striving to Score' (Sport in the Global Society, Routledge, 2008, Taylor and Francis), pg. 109; M. Dutta Ray, 'Playing Experience Needed in our Football Administration', in WIFA Golden Jubilee Souvenir (Bombay: WIFA, 1961); Annexure II (Guidelines for the Recognition of National Sports Federation) of the NSC 2011; C Boillat and R Poli, 'Governance Models Across Football Associations and Leagues' in Réflexions sportives, vol 4, International Centre for Sport Studies (2007); Electoral Disqualifications, Report No.

244 (Law Commission of India; February, 2014); 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. List of Websites List of Acts National Sports Development Code of India, 2011; Constitution of India; National Sports Governance Act, 2025; FIFA Statutes, 2022; Representation of the People's Act, 1951; FIFA Statute, 2024; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords All India Football Federation; Draft of the Constitution of All India Football Federation; Draft of the Constitution of AIFF; AIFF Constitution; Eminent players; Sports federations; AIFF's election; Committee of Administrators (CoA); National Sports Federation (NSFs); FIFA; Continuous monitoring of a sports federation; Constitution of AIFF, 2017. All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).

12591- 12592 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 31. 10. 2017 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM No. 46919 of 2016 and CM No. 19815 of 2012 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant(s): Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. , Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, Ms. Manya Hasija, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, T. illayarasu, Ms. Vaidehi Kolhe, Saurabh Guha, Mrs. Rasika Jalan, Nagarkatti Kartik Uday. Advs. for the Respondent(s): Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. /Amicus Curiae, Samar Bansal, Amicus Curiae. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K. M. Nataraj, A. S. G. , Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Ritin Rai, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Raghenth Basant, Sr. Advs. , Apoorv Kurup, Sharath Nambiar, Vinayak Sharma, Vatsal Joshi, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Chitransh Sharma, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Ms. Satvika Thakur, Ms. Nikita Capoor, Ms. Yogya Rajpurohit, S. Subramaniam, Ayush Ranjan, Ms. Ritika Ranjan, Kanu Agrawal, Rajat Nair, Arkaj Kumar, Padmesh Mishra, Dr. N.

Visakamurthy, Nar Hari Singh, Sanjeev K. Kapoor, Sahil Narang, Dhritiman Roy, Ayushman Kacker, Vidush Sinha, Raghav Agarwal, Madhavam Sharma, M/S. Khaitan & Co. , Prateek K Chadha, Utkarsh Pratap, Sreekar Aechuri, Aniket Chauhaan, Ms. Bhumika Yadav, Ms. Shaswati Parhia, Ms. Kashish Jain, Kotla Harshavardhan, Raghav Kohli, N. Sai Vinod, Anmol Gupta, Shuvodeep Roy, Siddharth Nath, Asjad Hussain, Ms. Anunaya Chowdhary, Vedant Kapur, Tushar Shrivastava, Ms. Jhanvi Dubey, Ms. Shreya Nair, Vishal Sinha, Ms. Trisha Chandran, Nagarkatti Kartik Uday, Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Shivam Singh, Anirudh Bhat, Nirmal Prasad, Yoshit Jain, Shubham Janghu, Ishwar Singh, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Akshay Mann, Kumar Abhishek, Sadhana Madhavan, Divyanshu Rai, Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Kshitij Maheshwari, Ms. Purnima Krishna. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Contents* 1.

Establishment of All India Football Federation and its history thereafter ............................................................................... 5 2. Issues for Consideration ....................................................... 20 i. Re: Eminent Players in the General Body ..................... 22 ii. Re: Eligibility Criteria for Eminent Players ..................... 29 iii. Re: The definition of "Office-Bearers" ............................ 31 iv. Re: Number of Vice-Presidents ...................................... 33 v. Re: On Disqualification Event(s) .................................... 36 a) Disqualification on Criminal Charge and Conviction . 38 b) 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 ...

40 c) Disqualification of persons who has served as an office-bearer of any NSF from holding a post in the AIFF .......................................................................... 43 vi. Re: On retaining 'indirect interest' in the definition of 'Conflict of interest' .......................................................... 44 vii. Re: On the applicability of AIFF Constitution to State Associations .................................................................... 46 viii. Re: AIFF and Third Parties: Extent of delegation of powers, functions, and exploitation of rights ................................ 51 ix. Re: Promotion and Relegation in Indian Football .......... 56 x. Re: Applicability of principles laid down in BCCI Judgment to the present case concerning football administration .. 60 xi. Re: Amendments to the AIFF Constitution and the need for the Supreme Court to retain control ......................... 61 * Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.

All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. xii. Re: Whether the current AIFF administration is a permanent or interim body? ............................................................. 63 3. Other objection(s)/suggestion(s)- .......................................... 67 i. On the definition and criteria of the Candidate: ............. 67 ii. Definition of 'immediate family ....................................... 69 iii. Obligation of member associations ................................ 69 iv. Suspension and Resignations ........................................ 70 v. Executive committee and concurrent memberships ...... 70 vi. Acting President ............................................................. 72 vii. Quorum ........................................................................... 72 viii. Disciplinary Committee ................................................... 73 ix. Appeal Committee .......................................................... 74 x.

Dispute Resolution and Grievance Redressal ............... 74 xi. Schedule III: Election Bye-Laws of All India Football Federation ....................................................................... 76 4. Conclusion ............................................................................. 77 1. Leave granted. 2. Recounting the social history of Indian Football, learned authors1 have observed that; "While the Indians were fighting the British for their independence, one of the most popular games in the country was football. Logically, after independence, football should have become India's number one sport. It is cheaper, it certainly permeated more layers of Indian society - even down to the semi-rural areas - than cricket and, as in other parts of the world, could have been a metaphor for nationalism. " 1 Mihir Bose, A History of Indian Cricket (London: Andre Deutsch Ltd, 1990), pp. 16-17.

"But as freedom drew close, football's erstwhile role as a nationalist symbol sharply diminished owing to the game's increasing communal and regional overtones. Despite the Indian national team's worthy performances at international level in the first fifteen years after 1947, gradually, regionalism seemed to become a more distinct and viable alternative in Indian football". 2 3. Unlike rights that can be enforced through law, fraternity is not amenable to judicial command; it must be nurtured through lived experiences of unity, trust, and shared endeavour. National, international, regional or even mohalla sports in India serve as the Karmabhumi where cohesion and collective purpose take tangible form. They bring together individuals from diverse social, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds under a common pursuit, embodying the Constitutional value of fraternity. Here, individual and collective aspirations find a way to coalesce. 3.

1 On the field, teamwork compels individuals to set aside personal distinctions and work together, cultivating habits of cooperation, solidarity, and mutual respect. Accessibility of sports is important, for when opportunities to participate are open to all--irrespective of race, caste, religion, sex, or economic status--the unifying power of sport is amplified. This inclusiveness ensures that sports become not a privilege of the few but a medium through which fraternity is strengthened across society. In this way, sports operationalise what the framers envisioned: an intangible yet indispensable force that holds us together through shared effort and common purpose. 3. 2 It is high time we recognize that sporting "facilities and opportunities"3are "material resources of the community" 4, and their organizers are "the institutions of the national life" 5.

As "places of public resort" 6, sporting institutions and bodies must 2 Boria Majumdar & Kausik Bandyopadhyay, 'A Social History of Indian Football: Striving to Score' (Sport in the Global Society, Routledge, 2008, Taylor and Francis), pg. 109. 3 Article 38(2), Indian Constitution. 4 Article 39(b), Indian Constitution. 5 Article 38, Indian Constitution. 6 Article 15(2), Indian Constitution. All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. remain accessible, not just for pursuing sport, but also for its administration. It should be the deeper Sadhana (endeavour) of the State, and it is also our Constitutional duty to ensure that sporting facilities and opportunities flourish with institutional efficiency, integrity, professionalism, and expertise. 3.

3 It is also necessary to ensure that sporting facilities and opportunities are not concentrated in the hands of the urban economic elite and that the revenues from sporting events, intellectual property and media rights are so distributed to subserve and encourage accessible and affordable sport in our country. 4. Establishment of All India Football Federation and its history thereafter: The AIFF, a National Sports Federation (NSF), was formed as the governing body of association football in the country in 1937. It has been observed that AIFF failed to evolve with time, took eleven years for its affiliation with the global apex body FIFA, and struggled to manage Indian football efficiently. As a result, the sport 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.

Taking into account the lapses in organisational control around Indian football, the commentators make a few observations, some of which are squarely applicable to the issues in the present appeals: "The Indian Soccer Administration Corruption and lack of professionalism go hand in hand in Indian football. The sport's apex body in India, AIFF, has not played it expected role to perfection... So far as the question of professionalism is concerned, it (AIFF) fares little better. Since its birth in 1937, AIFF showed an utter lack of professional attitude towards the game. It took eleven long years to get affiliated with the world apex body, FIFA. It played its flawed part in India's failure to participate in the 1950 World Cup. The unresolved dichotomy of national and club football has been, to a great extent, a result of its failure and amateurish duplicity. Moreover, factionalism, favouritism and infighting within the Federation are plain to see since its inception.

As one of the better administrators of Indian soccer/ AIFF argued in 1961: 1158 In our country, however, things are absolutely different. Whether it be in the All India sphere or in the State sphere, you will find very few people in the administration who could claim to be players themselves. Unless this vital change is introduced in the selection of the administrative personnel, I am afraid, our football will never attain its rightful stature. I have travelled throughout the world and had an opportunity to see the football set-up in all those places ... There football is guided by experts; here by all sorts of people, and the difference is there for all to see". 7 5. The present appeals arise out of a challenge to the order dated 31. 10. 2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM No. 46919/2016 and CM No. 19815/2012 in W. P. (C) No. 195/2010 ("Impugned Order"). 6. The short facts relevant to the present appeals are that Mr. Rahul Mehra, respondent no.

1 (in person), preferred a writ petition W. P. (C) No. 195/2010 raising questions on the working of various sports federations and their election process, and prayed for issuance of various writs directing the Union of India to interfere in the same. Amid the pendency of the writ petition, 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 ("National Sports Code"/"NSC"). 7. It is in this context that the respondent no. 1 filed an interlocutory application C. M. No. 19815 of 2012, 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. On 18. 12.

2012, the High Court passed an order, finding prima facie merit in the averments of the interlocutory application and directing the Union of India to examine the holding of AIFF's elections and pass a reasoned order deciding if the elections are being held 7 Supra 1 at pg. 173 quoting M. Dutta Ray, 'Playing Experience Needed in our Football Administration', in WIFA Golden Jubilee Souvenir (Bombay: WIFA, 1961). Incidentally Dutta Ray was the president of AIFF at that time. All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. in consonance with the regulatory framework. On 23. 08. 2013, the Union of India filed an affidavit before the High Court highlighting that it had examined the validity of elections held on 20. 12. 2012 and arrived at the conclusion that the elections "were free and fair and therefore the body elected in pursuance of the said election is liable to be accorded recognition". In that manner, the proceedings before the High Court qua 2012 elections stood concluded. 8.

In 2016, when the election to the AIFF's executive council again became due, the High Court on 15. 12. 2016 passed an order staying the election on the ground that the proposed election exercise violated the orders passed during the last elections in 2012. It is in these facts that the appellant filed an interlocutory application CM No. 46919/2016 seeking vacation of the order dated 15. 12. 2016 so that the elections may be concluded. On 20. 12. 2016, the High Court took up the application and vacated the stay order to the extent that the elections may proceed, but the result shall be subject to the final outcome of the application. 9. After the election process concluded, the matter was again taken up with the passing of the impugned order. Vide the impugned order, the High Court set aside the results of the elections of the appellant federation on grounds of non-compliance with the sports code and other regulations and also: a) appointed Dr. S. Y.

Quraishi, Former Chief Election Commissioner of India as the Administrator - cum - Returning Officer for the conduct of elections of the AIFF, b) directed that the elections of the AIFF were to be held after the preparation of an Electoral College, and c) directed that the elected body so constituted was to carry out the requisite amendments to the AIFF Constitution to bring it in conformity with the NSC 2011 as well. 10. The relevant directions contained in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment are extracted below: "22. The Court is of the view that insofar as the Rules of the AIFF are in breach of the National Sports Code and the Model Guidelines for the conduct of elections, the results of the elections of the AIFF declared on 21. 12. 2016 would 1160 have to be set aside. It is so ordered. Fresh elections shall be conducted in accordance with the Model Guidelines.

Additionally, nominations would be required to be proposed and seconded by one member association each and with clear notice, as required by the Model Election Guidelines read with rules of AIFF. Furthermore, the Electoral College shall be first prepared after addressing the complaints of various members who may have grievances in this regard. This exercise should be carried out by a person who has experience in sports affairs, public administration and the conduct of elections. Accordingly, this Court directs Mr. S. Y. Quraishi, former Chief Election Commissioner of India, who has also served as Secretary in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India, to be appointed as the Administrator-cum-Returning Officer for the conduct of the elections of the AIFF in the following manner: i.

To resolve the issue of disaffiliation of members/ units of AIFF as on 30th November, 2016 and to prepare the Electoral List, within a month by giving the concerned parties two weeks' notice; ii. Elections shall be held in six weeks after the preparation of the Electoral college. This elected body shall carry out the requisite amendments to the AIFF Constitution to bring it in conformity with the National Sports Code. iii. Once the AIFF Constitution has been amended, a fresh round of elections shall be carried out in terms of the National Sports Code, to ensure that age and tenure restrictions along with the provision for due representation of the sports-persons are strictly complied with. iv. The AIFF shall make available to the Administrator an appropriate office space and facilities for the discharge of the aforesaid directions and make available such staff and personnel as the Administrator may express the need for.

Alternatively, the Administrator may appoint such personnel to assist him in the aforesaid All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. matter and expenses towards the same shall be borne by the AIFF. v. Till the elections are conducted and results declared in consonance of the National Sports Code and in compliance with the preceding directions, the AIFF shall not make any new financial commitments except with the prior approval of the Administrator. Routine expenses of AIFF too shall be defrayed, only with the prior approval of the Administrator. The entire exercise will be completed within five months from the date the Administrator assumes charge; vi. However, to obviate any impediment in the conduct of any competitive tournament that may have been scheduled by the applicant, this order shall come into effect after two weeks from today. " 11. AIFF preferred the present appeals against the High Court's order. On 10. 11.

2017, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order and, in particular, the directions given by the High Court in paragraph 22. This Court further directed that Dr. S. Y. Quraishi and Mr. Bhaskar Ganguly, former Indian captain and international football player, would act as the Committee of Administrators ("CoA") for the formulation of the Constitution of the Federation in consonance with the NSC and Model Guidelines. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 10. 11. 2017 are extracted below: "Considering the rival submissions, we are inclined to stay the operation of the impugned judgment and, in particular, the directions given by the High Court in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment. We issue following interim directions:- (i) Mr. S. Y. Qureshi, former Chief Election Commissioner of India, who has also served as Secretary in the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India and Mr.

Bhaskar Ganguly, former Indian Captain and International Football Player, 38, Nalta Mahajoti Road, Kolkata-700028, are appointed as the Committee of Administrators (Ombudsmen) for formulation of Constitution of the Federation which 1162 will be in consonance with the National Sports Code and the Model Guidelines for the conduct of its business, constitution of the Executive Committee and elections thereto whilst ensuring that the status and membership of Petitioner Federation is not undermined in any manner in the International Body. They shall prepare the draft Constitution and submit the same within eight weeks along with their report, in a sealed cover before this Court. (ii) While formulating the proposed Constitution, the Committee of Administrators (Ombudsmen) may take into account the suggestions given by Respondent No. 1, if any.

(iii) After the report of the Committee of Administrators, along with the proposed Constitution, becomes available, further directions as may be necessary can be issued. We place on record the stand taken by the Petitioner before us that the present elected body of the PetitionerFederation is committed to extend its full cooperation to the Committee of Administrators for formulation of the ·proposed Constitution of the Federation which will be compliant in all respects and ensure transparency, accountability and observance of democratic values in the conduct of the business of the Federation. As aforementioned, the directions issued in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment shall remain in abeyance until further orders, subject to the above directions. " 12. The appeals again came up for hearing on 18. 05. 2022, wherein the composition of the CoA was reconstituted, with the inclusion of Mr. Justice Anil Dave, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India.

While re-constituting the CoA, the Court also noted the finalisation of the report by the CoA after eliciting and receiving responses from the relevant stakeholders. The Court further directed the counsel appearing on behalf of CoA to collate the objections to render facilitative assistance to this Court. The CoA was further requested to assess the suggestions/objections of the stakeholders and provide All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. inputs on the proposed suggestions/objections. The relevant portion of the order is as follows: "4. The CoA, acting under the authority assigned to it by this Court in terms of the above order has sought the permission to place the Constitution for further consideration. The request of the CoA is allowed. 5. The proposed Constitution of the All India Football Federation which has been directed to be presented to court in a sealed cover in the earlier interim order shall be circulated to all the parties.

Any objection or suggestion to the Constitution, as proposed, shall be filed only before this Court on or before 30 June 2022. Any party desirous of obtaining a copy of the proposed Constitution would be at liberty to email its request to Mr. Samar Bansal, counsel appearing on behalf of CoA. Mr. Bansal will circulate the proposed Constitution to the parties and to any other constituent unit. Thereafter, all objections and suggestions shall also be emailed to Mr. Bansal who shall collate the objections for the purpose of rendering facilitative assistance to this Court. Counsel is requested to prepare a tabulated statement of: (i) The Parties submitting suggestions/objections: (ii) The nature of the suggestions/objections; and (iii) The inputs of the CoA on the proposes suggestions/ objections 6. This exercise shall be carried out by the CoA on or before 15 July 2022 and a tabulated statement shall be placed on the record.

The tabulated statement shall also be circulated to all the parties so as to apprise them of the position. 7. The elections of the Executive Committee which were held on 21 December 2016 were set aside by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 31 October 2017. During the pendency of these proceedings, by the interim order dated 10 November 2017, the operation of the judgment of the High Court 1164 was stayed, including the directions which were issued in paragraph 22 of the judgment. The normal tenure of the elected body would, in any event, have come to an end on 20 December 2020. The consequence of the order of stay is that despite the expiry of its four year term, the Executive Committee has continued to govern the affairs of the Federation. This state of affairs is not in the interest of the proper governance of the Federation.

Hence, the two member CoA which was appointed by the order of this Court dated 10 November 2017 with a specific mandate to prepare the Constitution and hold elections to the Executive Committee, is reconstituted to consist of the following members: (i) Mr Justice Anil R Dave, former Judge of the Supreme Court; (ii) Dr S Y Qureshi, former Chief Election Commissioner; and (iii) Mr Bhaskar Ganguly, former captain of the Indian Football Team. 8.

The CoA shall take charge of the affairs of the Federation and shall carry out the following functions: (i) The CoA shall assist this Court and provide its inputs in the course of the present proceedings so as to facilitate the adoption of the Constitution after the objections/ suggestions are considered; (ii) The CoA shall prepare the electoral roll/college for the purpose of conducting the elections to the Executive Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, as proposed, subject to such further directions as may be issued by this Court after hearing the parties; (iii) The CoA shall carry out the day to day governance of the Federation; (iv) In discharging its task in terms of (iii) above, the CoA would be at liberty to take the assistance of the erstwhile Committee of the Federation which has continued till the date of this order in order to facilitate decisions being All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors.

taken, inter alia, on the holding of tournaments, selection of players and all other matters necessary for the proper governance of the Federation; (v) The erstwhile Committee which shall forthwith hand over the charge to the CoA; and (vi) The CoA would be at liberty to make all appropriate arrangements, for the governance of the Federation, until elections are held. 9. The present direction is a temporary arrangement in order to facilitate the holding of elections and the handing over of the affairs to a democratically elected body in terms of the Constitution which will be adopted. 10. It is expected that the process of conducting the elections should be completed expeditiously after the Constitution is finalized. " 13. When the matter was next listed before this Court on 21. 07. 2022, this Court was apprised by CoA that the CoA received nearly 215 comments from objectors, out of which nearly 98% of the objections have been accepted.

The Court also noted the concerns expressed by the Union Government regarding the proposed Constitution and observed that the objections would be considered expeditiously by the Court. To that effect, the Court also directed that all parties prepare a brief note of submissions and circulate them to the counsel appearing on behalf of the CoA. 14. Thereafter, on 03. 08. 2022, in view of the then-scheduled FIFA Under-17 Women's World Cup, 2022 and the indication of FIFA to CoA that the inaugural of the Under-17 tournament should be carried out under the auspices of a democratically elected body of AIFF, this Court observed that the elections of the executive committee of AIFF should be held expeditiously, consistent with provisions of Article 26 of the draft Constitution.

The relevant portion of the said order is under: "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; 1166 (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; (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) Each of the associations representing the State/ UTs would nominate one representative to the electoral college. The 36 member electoral college of eminent football players shall consists of 24 male and 12 female players. Each of them would be subject to the requirement of having represented India in at least one international match and should have retired from international football at least 2 years prior to the date of the notification of the elections...... " 15. Unfortunately, when the matter was listed on 22. 08.

2022, this Court was informed that the FIFA Council on 14. 08. 2022 had taken a decision to suspend AIFF from membership of FIFA. The immediate impact of the suspension would have been i) jeopardising the under-17 women's World Cup 2022, which was to take place in October 2022, and ii) the inability of Indian teams selected by the AIFF and its affiliated clubs to take part in international football matches or competitions as long as the suspension continued. 16. In view of the submissions made by the Ld. Solicitor General that it was needful that the 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 All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. holding of the Under-17 Women's World Cup 2022 in India".

The Court further noted the termination of the mandate of CoA and, while recording its appreciation of the sustained and remarkable efforts of CoA, requested Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ld. Senior Counsel and Mr. Samar Bansal, Ld. Counsel to assist the court as Amici. 17. 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, the Ld. Amici tabulated the provisions of the draft Constitution alongside the stakeholders' objections to each clause and comments on the proposal. Since the objections and suggestions were extensive, the Court found it necessary to refer the exercise of carrying out preliminary scrutiny and relevant modifications to the Constitution drafted by the CoA to an eminent jurist. In its order dated 02. 05. 2023, this court noted that many of the objections did not implicate pure issues of law but also policy.

In this view of the matter, the Court entrusted the task of finalising the Constitution of AIFF to Hon'ble Mr. 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). The relevant extract of the 02. 05. 2023 order is as under: "11. Ordinarily, we would have embarked upon the exercise of finalizing the draft constitution by hearing all the stakeholders. We, however, are of the view that it would be appropriate at this stage to defer the above exercise. Many of the objections which have been addressed by the stakeholders do not strictly implicate the issues of law, but, also trench into issues of policy including the proper modalities for running the sport of football in the country. 12. A similar exercise has been carried out under the orders of this Court in relation to IOA by Mr Justice L Nageswara Rao, former Judge of this Court.

Many of the objections which have been raised here would find a considerable degree of overlap in the proceedings which took place before the Hon'ble former Judge. Hence, it would be appropriate to entrust the task of finalizing the Constitution of AIFF to Mr Justice L Nageswara Rao. 1168 13. We request Mr Justice L Nageswara Rao, former Judge of this Court, to take up the task of finalising the draft constitution as was proposed by the CoA and which has now been propounded by the Amicus Curiae. 14. In preparing his report, Mr Justice L Nageswara Rao is requested to hear all the stakeholders, some of whom have already been referred to in the earlier part of this order. The exercise of considering the draft constitution and of submitting a comprehensive report bearing in mind the objections which have been addressed by all the stakeholders, may preferably, be carried out by 31 July 2023..... " 18.

Taking all suggestions into account, Justice L N Rao prepared a report and suggested amendments to the erstwhile Constitution drafted by the CoA. On 11. 09. 2023, this Court permitted the stakeholders to file objection(s) as they deem fit. On 19. 03. 2024, this Court permitted AIFF to file its objections to the draft Constitution proposed by Mr Justice L N Rao and requested the amici to update the existing chart to reflect the objections of AIFF. 19. It is in the above-referred background that the matter was listed before this bench on 25. 03. 2025, when it was decided to hear the contesting parties and pass final orders. The matter was heard in detail on 02. 04. 2025, 16. 04. 2025, 22. 04. 2025, 23. 04. 2025, 29. 04. 2025, and 30. 04. 2025. 20. The Court benefited from detailed and incisive submissions made by the Ld. Counsels on significant issues permeating Indian football. We heard Mr. K. M. Nataraj, Ld.

Additional Solicitor General for the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Ld. Senior Counsel for the AIFF, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Ld. Senior Counsel representing State associations, Mr. Prateek Chadha, Ld. Counsel for the Karnataka State Football Association, Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ld. Senior counsel for the Western India Football Association ('WIFA'), Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, alongside Mr. Ritin Rai, Ld. Senior Counsel for the intervenor Football Sports Development Limited ('FSDL'), Mr. Raghenth Basant, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Bhaichung Bhutia, Intervenor, Mr. Kotla Harshavardhan, Ld. Counsel on behalf of Mr. Ranjit Bajaj, Intervenor and Director of Delhi Football Club and Minerva Football Academy, Mr. Shivam Singh, Ld. Counsel All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. representing Mr. Shaji Prabhakaran (Intervenor), and Ms. Anitha Shenoy, representing Mr.

Gopala Krishna Kosaraju, Founder and Former President, Andhra Pradesh Football Federation. 21. We also heard Mr. Rahul Mehra, respondent no. 1, in person. All through the hearing, we were ably and effectively assisted by Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Mr. Samar Bansal, learned amici who have rendered effective assistance to this court. 22. The amici had previously submitted a tabulated chart containing a list of objections from all stakeholders. During the course of submissions, the counsels for the respective parties submitted written submissions, accompanied by rejoinders on the final day of hearing as well. 23. After hearing all the parties, our 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 2025,8 and this prompted the Ld. Amici to mention the matter before this Court. We listed the appeals for hearing on 01. 09. 2025 and heard the parties about the advent of the 2025 legislation. As the legislation has not yet been notified, we proceed to deliver this judgment filling up the legislative void in the interregnum. The Amici and other counsels have also informed us that the draft Constitution, as per the amendments suggested by Justice L N Rao is more or less in consonance with the provisions of the legislation, to be notified. Be that as it may, we now proceed to examine the following issues and give our judgment. 24. Issues for Consideration: The objections made by the parties to the draft Constitution fall primarily under the following domains: i. Should Eminent Players be in the General Body; if so, to what extent? ii.

What should be the Eligibility criteria to be designated an Eminent Player? iii. Whether 'Office bearers' should be limited to President, Treasurer, Secretary? 8 Hereinafter "NSGA 2025"/"2025 Act". 1170 iv. Whether the number of VPs should be increased to ensure regional representation? v. Whether public servants should be included under disqualification events? vi. Whether 'indirect interest' should be retained in the definition of 'conflict of interest'? vii. Should the AIFF Constitution apply to state associations? viii. What is the permissible extent of delegation of powers, functions, and exploitation of rights by AIFF to third parties? ix. Whether promotion and relegation should form part of the AIFF Constitution? x. To what extent are BCCI judgements applicable to football? xi. Should Amendments to the Constitution be approved by the Supreme Court? xii. Whether the current AIFF administration is a permanent or interim body? We have dealt with the above issues in seriatim.

Other miscellaneous suggestions/objections to the draft Constitution have been dealt with at a later stage. i. Re: Eminent Players in the General Body. 25. Under the draft Constitution, the composition of the general body is dealt with under Article 20. As per Article 20. 2, the General Body shall comprise: "(a) 1 (one) representative from every Member Association; (b) 15 (fifteen) 'Eminent Players' elected from a national player body. Out of the 15 (fifteen) Eminent Players, minimum 5 (five) shall be women (c) 3 (three) Club representatives, one each from ISL, I-League and Indian Women's League (d) 2 (two) representatives from Referees, 1(one) male and 1 (one) female; and (e) 2 (two) representatives from Coaches, 1 (one) male and 1 (one) female. " All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. 26. AIFF, as well as State associations, have argued against the prescribed composition of the General body. Mr.

Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior counsel on behalf of AIFF, has emphasised that the composition of member associations is restricted to almost 60% because of the prescription as provided under Article 20. 2. This, he would submit, is not in consonance with Clause 3. 20 of NSC 2011, which contemplates about 75% composition for the member associations. The said provision is extracted hereunder: "3. 20 Inclusion of prominent sportspersons of outstanding merit as members of the respective sports federations on a tenure basis. The strength of such prominent sportspersons with voting rights should be a certain minimum percentage (say 25%) of the total members representing the federation, and selection of such sportspersons should be in consultation with this Department. "9 (emphasis supplied) 27.

State associations, on the other hand, strongly oppose the voting rights to eminent players, referring to NSC 2011 (annexure 2), read with FIFA Statutes, and submitted that presence of eminent players' can at most be on a tenure basis. 28. The State associations also submit that while Eminent players, coaches, referees and club representatives may be allowed be a part of the executive committee, they cannot be a part of the general body of the AIFF and are not entitled to vote in general body meetings, as the NSC 2011 and the FIFA Statutes grant voting rights solely to member associations. On the other hand, AIFF does not dispute that eminent players should be part of the General Body; however, AIFF disagrees only on how many eminent players should form part of the General Body. 29.

To buttress their submission, state associations have relied on FIFA Statutes, 2022, particularly Article 26 read with Article 14(1)(a-d), to argue that the FIFA Statutes do not envisage individuals becoming members of national football associations. Further, State associations refer to clauses 3. 9 and 3. 10 of NSC 2011, arguing that there is no 9 Annexure II (Guidelines for the Recognition of National Sports Federation) of the NSC 2011. 1172 prescription under NSC 2011 for players to be part of the executive committee with voting rights. The said provisions are extracted below: "3. 9 The membership of the Federation should be confined to the corresponding State/UT and other special units affiliated (like Sports Control Boards etc. ) and where Federation grant membership to individual clubs or individual persons, such membership does not confer on such members the right to vote in any of the Federation's meetings. 3.

10 At the National level, there will be only one recognised federation for each discipline of sport. Only the duly recognised National Sports Federation would be entitled to financial grants as admissible. Only one State/UT Association from each State/UT shall be admitted as a member of the Federation, provided it has a minimum of 50% of the District level Associations affiliated to it. Any organisation of an all India standing and connected with the Sport may be given the status as that of a State or that of a U. T. and admitted as affiliated Member. Other categories of membership may also be given, but while each affiliated State/UT Unit shall have a right to cast vote in the General Body Meetings, no other class of Member(s) shall have any right to vote, in the Federation's meetings.

While granting recognition/affiliation to a State /UT Association, the National Federation should take into consideration the representative character of the State/UT Association so as to ensure that only truly representative body of the game gets the recognition/affiliation. " (emphasis supplied) 30. To counter the above submissions, the following facts were brought to our attention: a) Firstly, the FIFA Statutes 2022 and their most recent iteration in 2024 contemplate the inclusion of individuals in the body of the national federation. This is clear from Article 11(1), which recommends that "all member associations involve all All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors.

relevant stakeholders in football in their own structure"10, the term stakeholder being defined in definition 18 as "a person, entity or organisation which is not a member association and/or body of FIFA but has an interest or concern in FIFA's activities, which may affect or be affected by FIFA's actions, objectives and policies, in particular clubs, players, coaches, professional leagues and football fan". b) Secondly, Article 10 of the FIFA Standard Statute, which is a model Statute prescribed by FIFA to aid National Football Associations in drafting their own constituent documents, while dealing with admission to member associations, states that the members can be, inter alia, clubs, player groups, referee groups, and coach groups. 11 Following from this, Article 12 defines members' rights and Article 12(1)(a) explicitly grants all members the right to take part in the Congress (equivalent to the general body) and to "exercise their voting rights".

12 c) Thirdly, the inclusion of individual categories of members, such as eminent players, coaches, and referees, is also supported by the practice followed by a large number of national associations affiliated to FIFA, which permit the same. This has been documented and confirmed in a study conducted by the 'International Centre for Sport Studies', an independent study centre created as a foundation in 1995 by FIFA in conjunction with the University of Neuchâtel. 13 A perusal of the findings of this report shows that different national associations grant membership to a variety of stakeholders, including Eminent 10 "11. Admission: 1. Any association which is responsible for organising and supervising football in all of its forms in its country may become a member association. Consequently, it is recommended that all member associations involve all relevant stakeholders in football in their own structure.

Subject to paragraph 5 below, only one association shall be recognised as a member association in each country. (... )" (emphasis supplied) 11 "10. Admission 1. The Members of X are: a) Clubs; b) Regional Associations; c) Leagues; d) Player groups; e) referees' groups; f) coaches' groups; g) ... [to be completed by the Association]. (... )" 3. The application must be accompanied by the following mandatory items: (... ) b) a declaration that it will always comply with the Statutes, regulations and decisions of X, FIFA and ... [abbreviation or acronym of the relevant Confederation] and ensure that these are also respected by its own Members, Clubs, Officials and Players;" 12 "12. Members' rights 1. The Members of X have the following rights: a) to take part in the Congress of X, to know its agenda in advance, to be called to the Congress within the prescribed time and to exercise their voting rights; (...

)" 13 C Boillat and R Poli, 'Governance Models Across Football Associations and Leagues' in Réflexions sportives, vol 4, International Centre for Sport Studies (2007). 1174 Players, coaches, and referees. The above data simply does not support the proposition that it is a standard practice to exclude individual players from membership of associations. 31. Taking the aforementioned into account, it was submitted that the inclusion of Eminent Players, clubs, and coaches in the proposed Constitution is in consonance with the very FIFA Statutes relied upon by state associations. 32. Commenting on this provision, Justice L N Rao has stated that the "article has been finalised in consultation with FIFA and considering the requirements of player representation under the Sports Code. " 33. We have read 3. 9, 3. 10 and 3. 20 of the NSC 2011 in conjunction. On a holistic reading of the provision, we find that no conflict or contradiction appears to arise. While it is correct that clauses 3.

9 or 3. 10 of the NSC 2011 do not confer voting rights on individual members of an association, it is equally true that clause 3. 20 explicitly grants voting rights to a specific sub-category of individual members, i. e. , "prominent sportspersons of outstanding merit". A harmonious and conjoint reading of clauses 3. 9, 3. 10 or 3. 20 would thus show that clause 3. 20 is essentially a carve-out from clauses 3. 9 or 3. 10, and grants voting rights to the class of persons indicated therein, i. e. , "prominent sportspersons of outstanding merit. " Reading the provisions conjointly, it therefore appears that the substantive composition of the organisational structure should consist of member associations, and it is contemplated to be an ideal situation to have eminent sportspersons having voting rights. We find that the percentage indicated in clause 3. 20 of the NSC 2011 is not transgressed by clause 20. 2 of the draft Constitution. 34.

The argument of State associations regarding transgression of FIFA Statute lacks merit inasmuch as the Standard Statutes 2005 itself suggests the inclusion of experienced players with voting rights. The relevant provisions have already been extracted above. The study conducted under the aegis of the University of Neuchâtel also points towards the practice of inclusion of players in the organisational structure. It is also important for us to note that clause 20. 2 was also subjected to scrutiny, as indicated by Justice L N Rao, who stated that he had a meeting with officials of FIFA in Zurich, and the provision was finalised in consultation with the officials of FIFA. All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. 35. We are 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.

The democratic setup of the federation is not destabilised as the elected member associates certainly continue to hold more than 62% as the NSC 2011 under clause 3. 20 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%. 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. 36. In this view, we are not inclined to interfere with the draft provision. ii. Re: Eligibility Criteria for Eminent Players 37. The issue of eligibility criteria for eminent players is important. Three important yet divergent submissions have been made in this regard.

It is important to note that while the preliminary CoA draft of the AIFF Constitution (2017) did not define the word eminent player, the later draft by CoA kept the criterion that participation in 15 competitive matches was a minimum to be considered an 'eminent player'. Article 1. 19 of the latest draft, as finalised by Justice L N Rao, defines an 'eminent player' to be a past player, who has been retired for at least 2 years, and has represented India (senior) in at least 7 competitive matches (men)/ 3 competitive matches (women) sanctioned by FIFA/AFC14. 38. AIFF has submitted that, in addition to international matches sanctioned by FIFA/AFC, domestic matches sanctioned by AIFF should also be counted for determining whether a player meets the experience cut-off. The state associations, however, submit that the threshold be kept as it was in the preliminary draft, i. e.

, 15 sanctioned matches for male players and 5 sanctioned matches for female players, with further dilution to 3 matches in case the pool of qualified candidates is not adequate. 39. Though there is justification to include an eminent player in the general body, there is a practical problem. We are informed that we do not 14 Asian Football Confederation. 1176 have a sufficient pool of eminent players who have participated in 15 competitive matches. Even as per the suggestion of Justice L N Rao, we may not have sufficient numbers to fill up the position of 10 male and 5 female eminent players in the general body. We either reduce the number of eminent players in the general body or reduce the criteria for qualifying as an eminent player. This issue needs to be resolved on the basis of the current position of the availability of past players. The Ld.

Amici have informed us that the CoA could collect a list of 236 male and 3 female players who had played at least one official match for India. However, no official data on this point is maintained by AIFF. We do not have further details. 40. The draft Constitution already prescribed a criterion, and we have examined it carefully. After examining the whole conspectus in the foregoing analysis, we are of the opinion 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. We 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. So far, the submission of AIFF qua counting domestic experience for eminence status is concerned, we are not inclined to accept it.

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. iii. Re: The definition of "Office-Bearers" 41. 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 that AIFF shall have the following office-bearer(s). The Article is extracted for ready reference. Article 25: Office-Bearers of AIFF and Composition of the Executive Committee: 25. 1 AIFF shall have the following Office-Bearers who shall all constitute the Executive Committee: (a) 1 (one) President (b) 2 (two) Vice Presidents (c) 1 (one) Treasurer All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. (d) 10 (ten) members, out of whom at least 5 (five) shall be Eminent Players. Further, out of the Eminent Players, at least 2 (two) shall be female Eminent Players (... ). 42.

With respect to the above definition, State associations have argued that, as per NSC 2011, the term office bearer can only encompass President, Treasurer, and Secretary. It is argued that while the NSC provides for the executive committee to have other members, including Vice-Presidents, the term office-bearer itself may not include any other position. To make this submission, the State associations refer to a letter to the President, Indian Olympic Association, by Joint Secretary to the government of India dated 20. 09. 1975, which forms a part of NSC 2011 and mentions the above three posts as being included in the term 'office-bearers'. We have examined the letter. Having examined the letter, we are of the opinion that it has no bearing on the definition of office bearer. 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. On the other hand, the inclusive definition will be consistent with the reforms that have been introduced and applied as independent measures for the vibrant working of the federation. Having examined the clause, Justice L N Rao has not considered it necessary to alter the same. In this view, we are not inclined to accept the suggestion. iv. Re: Number of Vice-Presidents 43. As reproduced above, the definition of office-bearer(s) includes 2 vice-presidents. While State associations have suggested that there should be five VPs to represent each zone, AIFF suggests that there should be three VPs, one of which should be a female. State federations cite that the FIFA council has VPs from all different continental federations and that increasing the number of VPs will be compliant with NSC.

AIFF argues for an increase in the number of VPs to 3, providing for one woman vice-president. 44. Many stakeholders have opposed the above submissions, arguing that a) the number of VPs has been restricted to prevent influential persons from accommodating themselves or their supporters, b) that under the AIFF Constitution, it is the President and Secretary General who are primarily responsible for the management and day- 1178 to-day affairs of the AIFF, and c) the judgement in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar15 ("BCCI-I"), particularly paragraph 1816, is clear and categorical in its rejection of accommodating regional interests. 45. Per Contra, Mr. Mehra submits that the number of executive committee members cannot exceed 12 persons in terms of the NSC 2011. We gave serious consideration to the issue, and we find that no harm is caused by exceeding the membership of the executive committee.

We believe both CoA and Justice L N Rao have taken into account the NSC 2011 and balanced it with the demands of the sport. The order of this Court dated 22. 08. 2022 provided that the EC of the federation will consist of 23 persons as an arrangement at that time, a higher number than the 12-person committee. 17 Therefore, we are not inclined to reduce the size of the executive committee. 46. At this juncture, Ld. Amici has directed our attention to Section 4(1) (b) of the NSGA, 2025. 18 It was argued that the provision under the 2025 Act only contemplates that there should be no more than 15 members in the executive committee. While the draft Constitution already provides for 14 members, there is no conflict. Taking all factors into account, we are of the opinion that the suggestion(s) made by the State Associations to increase the number of VPs to five would not be possible in the present statutory scheme. 47. However, we are inclined to accept the arguments of Mr.

Ranjit Kumar, 15 (2016) 8 SCC 535. 16 "18. (.... ) (d) Zonal considerations - There seems to be no rational basis for the Presidency to be rotated as per Zones, which has the effect of forsaking merit. A person who has the support of as few as two or three members in his Zone may end up as the President, if it is the turn of that Zone for election of President. Recent amendments to the Rules have permitted individuals who are not even from the zone in question to be nominated to the post. For the same reason, the Vice-Presidents who are elected from each of the five zones seem to be merely ornamental without any specific functions. " 17 "11. (... ) (vii) The EC of AIFF shall consist of 23 persons: (i) 17 members (inclusive of the President, a Treasurer and one Vice President) will be elected by the electoral college consisting of 35 Associations representing States/Union Territories; (ii) 6 members shall be drawn from eminent players in the manner indicated in paragraph 7 above (...

)" 18 "S. 4 (1)(b) Executive Committee (1) Every National Sports Body shall have, -- (b) an Executive Committee which shall consist of not more than fifteen members, of whom-- (i) at least two shall be sportspersons of outstanding merit; (ii) two shall be from the Athletes Committee to be elected from amongst themselves; and (iii) such number of ex officio and other members shall be nominated or elected, as the case may be, as per the International Charters and Statutes and the bye-laws: Provided that at least four members shall be women: Provided further that the voting rights of elected representatives of the Athletes Committee in the Executive Committee shall be as determined by the bye-laws;" All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. Ld. Senior Counsel 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. v. Re: On Disqualification Event(s) 48. There is more than one contentious aspect of the provision regarding disqualification in the proposed Constitution, all of which were argued before us at length. These relate to a) disqualification on criminal charge and conviction, b) disqualification by virtue of being a public servant, and c) disqualification of persons who have served as an office-bearer of any NSF from holding a post in the AIFF. 49. It shall befit to begin by reproducing the provision as it finds itself in the amended Constitution by Justice L N Rao. Article 1.

17 of the Constitution defines disqualification event(s) as the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to a person: (a) Not being or ceasing to be a citizen of India; (b) Attainment of the age of 70 (seventy) years; (c) Having charges framed or being convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in India for an offence punishable by imprisonment for 2 (two) or more years. Provided that where charges are framed the person shall be disqualified until acquittal and where the person is convicted he shall be disqualified for a further period of 6 (six) years from the date of conviction. If such person prefers an appeal or an application for revision and the Court stays the trial or conviction as the case may be, such person shall not be disqualified during the period such stay is in operation.

However, in regard to an appeal by a convicted person, the disqualification will not cease if only a stay of sentence is ordered and not a stay of the conviction itself; (d) Being banned from participation in any footballing activity by any AIFF Judicial Body, till the date of culmination of the ban; 1180 (e) Being declared of unsound mind; (f) Being declared insolvent under applicable law; (g) Being or becoming a Public Servant or holding a public office or holding any office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from Football, except the Indian Olympic Association; or (h) Completion of the maximum term of office of any particular office-bearer as specified in Article 26. 3, without serving the specified cooling-off period of 4 (four) years where applicable. (emphasis supplied) 50. Clauses (c), (g), and (h) of Article 1. 17 have been contested by multiple stakeholders.

It is primarily argued with respect to clause (c) that framing of charges per se does not invite culpability so as it disqualifies a person from holding an office. With regard to clause (g), it is argued that NSC 2011 does not, by itself, bar public servants from being members of the General body of the NSFs/State Units. State associations have sought that the clause (g) be modified to include only ministers and government servants. In this light, the State associations seek deletion of the definition of the term public servant under Article 1. 46, which defines public servant "as a person defined as such under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860". 51. Clause (h), on the other hand, has been suggested for modification to envisage and include situations where office-bearers of different NSFs, despite completion of tenure in those NSFs, try to occupy the position of an office-bearer in AIFF.

This suggestion intends to prevent "persons from rendering tenure restrictions otiose by simply switching to another sport after finishing tenure in one NSF". 52. We take the above issues in succession. a) Disqualification on Criminal Charge and Conviction 53. Mr. Nataraj, appearing for Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports submitted that there is a clear distinction between convicted persons and charge-framed persons; the latter cannot be put on the same pedestal as the former. During the course of the hearing, a hypothetical argument was made that in cases of minor offences like dishonour of All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors. a cheque, the court may frame charges, but the very fact of framing charges should not preclude a person from contesting and taking positions of responsibility in the federation. It was suggested that the disqualification event/termination of membership should only be for convicted persons who have been sentenced for 2 years or more.

A parallel was drawn to section 8(3) of the Representation of the People's Act, 1951 ("RPA"), which speaks of disqualification for a period of six years only on the event of conviction and sentence of imprisonment for not less than two years. 19 In this regard, our attention was directed to the 244th Report of the Law Commission of India,20 which, on discussing disqualifications in the context of RPA, observes, inter alia: "Since the stage of framing of charges is based on substantial level of judicial scrutiny, a totally frivolous charge will not stand this scrutiny. Therefore, given the concern of criminalisation of politics in India, disqualification at the stage of charging is justified having substantial attendant legal safeguards to prevent misuse. The framing of charges is therefore not an automatic step in the trial process, but one that requires a preliminary level of judicial scrutiny.

The provisions in the CrPC require adequate consideration of the merits of a criminal charge before charges are framed by the Court. The level of scrutiny required before charges are framed is sufficient to prevent misuse of any provision resulting in disqualification from contesting elections. 21 54. It is not in dispute that the above suggestion, qua disqualification premised on framing of charge, never saw the light of day. While expressing anguish over the increasing criminalisation of politics, this Court, in the Constitutional bench judgement of Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India,22 noted that though disqualification from 19 8. Disqualification on conviction for certain offences.

-- (3) A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years [other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)] shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. ] 20 Electoral Disqualifications, Report No. 244 (Law Commission of India; February, 2014) s3waas. gov. in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2022/08/2022081612. pdf>. 21 N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, AIR 1952 SC 64; Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1954 SC 210; Dr. N. B. Khare v. Election Commission of India, AIR 1958 SC 139. 22 (2019) 3 SCC 224. contesting elections upon framing of charges may be desirable, the Law Commission's recommendations had not yet fructified into law, and accordingly, it would be ideal if Parliament examines the issue. 55. We have perused the referred material and arguments in detail.

In view of the fact that the recommendations of the law commission of India have not adopted by legislature yet, and also in view of the fact that no relevant parallel has been brought to our notice regarding any other NSF's Statutes containing such a provision, we are inclined to modify the provision of disqualification based on framing of charge to the standard as envisaged in the later judgement of BCCI i. e. , "conviction followed by a sentence of imprisonment". 23 b) 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 56. AIFF submits that public servants should not be excluded from holding office in the federation. It is submitted that being a "Public Servant" should not be a disqualification event because NSC 2011 does not mandate so. Further, the stringent BCCI Constitution limits disqualification to "Ministers or Government Servants" only.

The same should not be extended to Members of Parliament or Members of the Legislative Assembly. It is also submitted that in the event Sportspersons and coaches serve as Members of Parliament (MPs), Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), or hold other public offices, disqualifying them on