Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | SLP(C) No.-030748-030749 – 2017 |
| Diary Number | 35846/2017 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on National Sports Federations and their State Units |
| Affirms / Overrules | Affirms NSC 2011 and BCCI precedents |
| Type of Law | Sports governance; constitutional review; administrative law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) | The Supreme Court held that clauses 3.9, 3.10 and 3.20 of NSC 2011 must be read harmoniously to permit a carve-out for “prominent sportspersons of outstanding merit” with voting rights in the General Body. The draft AIFF Constitution’s inclusion of 15 retired international players (5 women) is consistent with FIFA Statutes and global practice. Eligibility is confined to players retired ≥2 years, with a revised threshold of 5 men/2 women matches to ensure a sufficient pool. Disqualification on criminal grounds is limited to conviction with sentence ≥2 years, and only Ministers/Government servants are barred by public-office disqualification. The AIFF Constitution validly applies to State Associations to maintain a uniform governance pyramid. Amendments above 75% majority require Supreme Court leave. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | BCCI v Cricket Assn. of Bihar (2016) 8 SCC 535; BCCI v Cricket Assn. of Bihar (2022) 19 SCC 30; RPA 1951 § 8(3) jurisprudence (e.g., N.P. Ponnuswami, Jagan Nath, Dr N.B. Khare); FIFA Statutes model provisions; Law Commission Report No. 244 (2014) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Harmonious construction of NSC 2011; pyramidical structure of sports governance; democratic values; international best practices under FIFA Statutes; precedents on sports body reforms; administrative discretion; constitutional values of transparency and fraternity |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondent challenged AIFF elections as violating NSC 2011. Delhi HC set aside results and appointed Administrator. SC stayed HC order, appointed two-member CoA, directed draft Constitution. Iterations involved stakeholder objections, reconstituted CoA, FIFA suspension, fresh elections, reference to Justice L Nageswara Rao for final draft, culminating in this judgment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All National Sports Federations and their State Associations |
| Persuasive For | High Courts; other regulatory sports bodies; FIFA‐affiliated national associations |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | Miami FC v FIFA (CAS 2017/O/5264) on first-time promotion/relegation mandates |
| Follows | BCCI reform judgments; NSC 2011 guidelines; FIFA Standard Statutes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Harmonious reading of NSC 2011: clauses 3.9/3.10 do not bar voting rights for “prominent sportspersons” as carved out in clause 3.20.
- Inclusion of 15 eminent players (minimum 5 women) in AIFF General Body upheld as consistent with FIFA Statutes and global practice.
- Eligibility for eminent players reduced to retired ≥2 years with ≥5 international matches (men) or ≥2 matches (women).
- Disqualification on criminal grounds limited to conviction with sentence ≥2 years (no bar on framing of charges alone).
- Public-office disqualification confined to Ministers/Government servants (approved by NGSA 2025 standards).
- AIFF Constitution validly extends to State Associations to preserve the governance pyramid.
- “Indirect interest” remains a ground for conflict of interest; direct dual office-holding also prohibited.
- Promotion and relegation principle integrated; no compulsory change for established practice.
- Amendments require 75% General Body majority and leave of the Supreme Court before coming into effect.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Inclusion of Eminent Players
- NSC 2011 clauses 3.9/3.10 (no voting rights for individuals) and 3.20 (25% prominent sportspersons with voting rights) read together.
- FIFA Statutes and model statutes permit stakeholder membership with voting rights.
- Global practice confirms retired players on National Association bodies.
- Eligibility Criteria for Eminent Players
- Draft defined retired ≥2 years, ≥7/3 FIFA/AFC matches too onerous.
- Reduced to ≥5 (men) and ≥2 (women) competitive matches to ensure adequate pool.
- Definition of Office-Bearers and EC Composition
- Office-bearers include President, 3 Vice-Presidents (with one woman VP), Treasurer, and 10 members (≥5 eminent players).
- NSGA 2025 allows ≤15 Executive Committee members; conforms by revising VPs to 3.
- Disqualification Events
- Removed disqualification on framing charges; bar only upon conviction with sentence ≥2 years plus 6-year cooling-off.
- Public-office bar confined to Ministers/Government servants; approval-in-service may override.
- No bar on former NSF office-bearers in other sports.
- Conflict of Interest
- Retained “indirect interest” ground (relatives, associates); complements direct dual-office prohibition.
- Applicability to State Associations
- AIFF status under Article 2.3 and Article 15 obliges State Units to conform for uniform governance and FIFA compliance.
- Commercial Rights and Third Parties
- Definition of “essential aspects” (e.g., rules, promotion/relegation) limits but does not preclude private rights exploitation.
- Contractual delegation must preserve AIFF’s core functions.
- Promotion and Relegation
- Reinforced as FIFA standard; no new mandate on practice in already compliant ISL.
- Amendment Procedure
- 75% General Body majority required plus Supreme Court leave (per BCCI-II).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (AIFF)
- Draft Constitution aligns with NSC 2011 and FIFA; inclusion of retired players enhances governance.
- Eligibility threshold should include domestic matches (rejected by SC).
- Public-office bar too broad if including all public servants (trimmed to Ministers/servants).
Respondent (Rahul Mehra in person)
- Amendments require SC leave.
- Dual office-holding in AIFF and State Units should trigger automatic vacation.
State Associations
- NSC 2011/FIFA Statutes grant voting rights only to Member Associations, not individuals.
- Disallow public servants, except Ministers/servants.
- AIFF Constitution should not bind State Units (rejected).
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports
- Disqualification on conviction akin to RPA § 8(3).
- Public-office disqualification confined to Ministers/Government servants.
Intervenor (FSDL)
- AIFF may freely exploit commercial rights; “essential aspects” too restrictive. (SC retains membrane at Article 1.21).
Factual Background
In 2010, Mr. Mehra challenged AIFF’s election process as violative of NSC 2011. Delhi HC set aside results (2017) and appointed an Administrator. SC stayed that order (2017), constituted a two-member CoA to draft a new Constitution. CoA reconstituted with three members (2022). Stakeholder objections and FIFA suspension of AIFF led to expedited fresh elections (September 2022). Justice L Nageswara Rao finalised the draft (2023). This judgment approves and modifies the draft Constitution.
Statutory Analysis
-
National Sports Development Code 2011
- Clause 3.9/3.10: Individual membership no voting rights.
- Clause 3.20: Up to 25% prominent sportspersons with voting rights.
- Clause 6.1(b): NSFs fully responsible; no full delegation.
-
National Sports Governance Act 2025
- S 4(1)(b): Executive Committee ≤15 members; ≥2 athletes; ≥4 women.
- S 4(2): Candidate must be Indian citizen ≥25 years; Govt. servant needs approval; age/term restrictions.
-
Representation of the People Act 1951
- § 8(3): Disqualification on conviction and sentence ≥2 years + 6-year cooling-off.
-
FIFA Statutes (2024)
- Articles on stakeholder involvement, promotion/relegation, membership structure.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissent or concurrence was recorded.
Procedural Innovations
- Constituted successive Committees of Administrators (CoA) to draft and refine Constitution.
- Engaged Amici Curiae to collate stakeholder objections in a tabulated form.
- Entrusted finalisation of draft to Justice L Nageswara Rao, leveraging analogous IOA experience.
- Hybrid process combining judicial oversight with stakeholder consultation under SC supervision.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law upheld; BCCI and NSC 2011 precedents affirmed.