All India Football Federation vs Rahul Mehra & Ors.

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]

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 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] 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]