The Supreme Court on Tuesday initiated final hearings concerning the establishment of the Constitution for the All India Football Federation (AIFF), based on a draft prepared by former apex court judge Justice L. Nageswara Rao. The hearings, led by Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, address multiple pleas, including one from the Federation itself.
The AIFF’s constitutional overhaul follows directives from the Supreme Court, which appointed Justice Rao to draft the document. The need for reform was accentuated by various stakeholders’ calls for transparency and modern governance structures within the Federation. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, serving as amicus curiae, began the session by discussing key provisions of the proposed Constitution, highlighting that certain clauses have raised concerns among members and former players.
One notable clause caps the tenure of elected AIFF officials to 12 years, with a mandatory four-year cooling-off period after eight consecutive years in office. Additionally, the draft stipulates that no member can continue in office beyond the age of 70.
Justice Narasimha announced that next Wednesday’s session would entertain objections from counsel regarding the draft Constitution. This follows an earlier phase where Justice Rao was tasked with revising the draft after considering feedback from various entities, including state football associations and the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).
The bench has also acknowledged the logistical and financial support from the Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), a Reliance subsidiary and operator of the Indian Super League, in facilitating the Constitution revision process led by Justice Rao.
The court’s directive underscores the aim to harmonize the AIFF’s governance with international standards and ensure compliance with the national sports code. The process of finalizing the Constitution is expected to integrate all stakeholder inputs comprehensively, as emphasized in previous sessions where the bench solicited clause-by-clause analyses to address any discrepancies.
