Has AIFF really undermined its competition committee at the CAS? President Kalyan Chaubey clarified

Two days after the I-League chairman, Lalnghinglova HMar, claimed that the All India Football Federation (AIFF) had undermined its own competition committee to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the point of Inter Kashi that the I-League won.

The issue in question was the registration of Kashi’s player Mario Barco, who was initially registered and then brought back into the mid -season.

The relocation was approved by the League Committee-a organ that the AIFF was previously called ‘responsible for holding and organizing the competition and dealing with and/or arriving on all decision-making processes and issues that are mentioned below or are otherwise provided in these regulations, unless otherwise explicitly excluded’.

However, the decision was invalid by the appeal committee.

Read also | Indian Football – Aiff expected to confirm the head coach for men’s team on August 1

When the ruling was challenged in the CAS, instead of enforcing its Pro-League committee (mentioned above), the AIFF had no choice but to defend his own professional committee, even if that meant that he would take a position against the League committee.

«… The AIFF League committee lacked the authority to give any definitive and binding clarification or opinion about the interpretation of Article 6.5.7 in response to the question of the AIFF competition,» said the AIFF, in its submission to the CAS.

«As such, the advice of the League Committee AB 7 Initio was invalid. The invalidity of the advice of the League Committee is not only procedural but jurisdiction, and therefore it has affected the entire process.»

HMar said that the change in attitude had left him ‘confused and disappointed’, written in a letter to the Aiff President Kalyan Chaubey on July 23.

However, Chaubey clarified that the change had nothing to do with the undermining of the competition committee and that it was a consequence of the different legal attitude of the federation in the two judicial bodies.

Unlike in the appeal committee, the AIFF was obliged to defend its own judicial body at the CAS, which encouraged the shift.

“After considering the submissions of all parties, including those made by the AIFF itself, the Appeals Committee issued its decision, which went against Inter Kashi, which was a respondent during these proceedings. Kashi subsequently challenged this ruling before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, «Chaubey Told Sports star.

«In the proceedings before Cas, Inter Kashi was a rackwirant and the Aiff was mentioned as a respondent, because the decision that was challenged by one of his judicial authorities, the appeal committee. Since the appeal committee had taken into account the entries of the AIFF while the case was determined to defend that decision for Cas.»

Ultimately, on July 18, the CAS set aside the decision of the appeals committee and Kashi awarded the competition champion.