The opinion of the Supreme Court on Aiff’s Constitution – what are the most important highlights in the design and the judgment?

The Supreme Court of India issued a detailed order on 19 September on the Constitution of the All India Football Federation (AIFF).

The earliest traces of the case dates from 2010 when lawyer Rahul Mehra had submitted a written petition to the Delhi Supreme Court, who raised questions about the functioning of various sports federations and their election process.

In the end, the AIFF Constitution was drawn up and submitted to the court by the former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice L. Naonswara Rao, in 2023.

The Saga ended last week when the court gave an opinion on the issue of 78 pages, in which the AIFF was instructed to call up a special general body meeting and to adopt the draft constitution with changes in its opinion-preferably within four weeks.

While the document has 121 points of the honorable bank of Justice Pamidighhantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joimmalya Bagchi, five important points of talks of the statement are:

Current Exco to stay in power until 2026

One of the most important points of discussion in the AIFF’s statement was whether there would be new elections for a new executive committee and a resulting new president and vice president.

This point was repeatedly raised by adv. Mehra and former India captain Bhaichung Bhutia. However, the court ruled against new elections.

«… Due to the fact that the existing executive committee and the general body of the AIFF were chosen after a decent process, the need was not to be felt to end their conditions immediately and impose new elections,» noted Justice L Nageswara Rao in the existing committee.

The Supreme Court agreed to the observation of Justice Rao and stated: «In the facts and circumstances of the case, we believe that the current executive committee can be dealt with as a permanent body that will fulfill its function in accordance with the relevant laws and the AIFF constitution.»

Also read: India will probably not send the men’s football team at Asian Games 2026; Women’s side is looking for silver lining at Asian Cup

The existing executive committee, led by President Kalyan Chaubey, has a fixed period until 2026. Moreover, with a statement against the elections, the AIFF may have avoided an interference of third parties with regard to elections and the subsequent prohibition of the International Football Association (FIFA).

Maintain promotion and relegation

The Supreme Court has confirmed Article 1.54 of the design: «Seniormost Top Division League» means that the competition match that is owned is operated and recognized by the AIFF, which implements the principles of promotion and degradation and complies with all the requirements for obtaining an immediately lock for obtaining the acquisition.

Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL) – the body that runs the ISL – has run promotion plans but not relegation, while the last design – in March 2026 – had disputed a moratorium against promotion or relegation for 10 years.

The Supreme Court maintained the provisions of the AIFF design constitution and ruled against FSDL’s plans.

No Netas or ministers allowed

Every chosen councilor will be automatically disqualified as an office carrier after nine years, and will also be disqualified to dispute or to cover the position if he has completed the age of 70, is accused of criminal legislation, is explained of a faulty spirit, is a minister or government service or has a post of another sports organ in the country.

However, there is a reservation. If the person has obtained the necessary permissions – mainly from the government. «If these permissions are taken, there may be no justification to completely limit or disqualify an official,» the court noted.

Owned by Top Division

The court ruled against the type of delegation that was set out in the Master Rights Agreement and was previously intended that AIFF is «fully responsible and responsible for general management».

Also read: Saff U-17 Championship-a-Sondaard India will compete against Nepal in semi-final with a view to the Summit collision

FSDL presented the ‘Addition of the word’ ownership ‘to Article 63.1 to further clarify that ownership rights of the League will rest with AIFF, «the court accepted.

The AIFF has now assigned KPMG to find the next commercial partner for the Indian Super League after the existing MRA ends in December 2025.

‘Eminent player’ again defined

The Supreme Court has re -defined the criteria for eminent players in the Indian football context.

Article 1.19 of the latest draft Constitution, as completed by Justice Ln Rao, previously defined an ‘eminent player’ to be a player from the past who has been retiring for at least two years and has represented India (senior) in at least seven competitive competitions (men)/Three competitive match.

The court changed the minimum criteria in five games for men and two games for women.

Published on September 24, 2025