Supreme Court says it does not intend to monitor AIFF’s functioning

The Supreme Court clarified it won't monitor AIFF's operations, responding to concerns over provisions in its constitution affecting independence.

New Delhi: Ahead of the crucial AIFF special general body’s Sunday meeting to adopt its constitution, the Supreme Court on Friday said that it does not intend to monitor the functioning of the football body. The court was responding to an application filed by AIFF seeking changes to two key provisions in the constitution which affected its independence. The draft constitution was approved last month by the Supreme Court, which directed the AIFF to adopt the same by calling a Special General Body Meeting.

The Supreme Court of India. (HT)

The two provisions under challenge were Article 23 that said no amendments will be carried out to the constitution without the court’s nod; and Article 25.3 which bars a member of AIFF to simultaneously hold post in the state federations.

A bench of justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, which heard the AIFF plea, said, “One thing you can clarify to the general body that the court is not intending to monitor your functioning. The intention behind Article 23 was to ensure the constitution gets adopted.”

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra appearing for the AIFF informed that FIFA wrote a letter on October 9 expressing concern over these two provisions as it would amount to “third party” intervention. The FIFA letter said, “While we understand the intent behind this clause, we are concerned that it could significantly hinder the Federation’s flexibility and responsiveness, especially in cases involving minor or cosmetic changes. Moreover, this provision could also be perceived as an infringement of the principle of independence of Member Associations, in accordance with Articles 14(i) and 19 of the FIFA Statutes and 10(i) of the AFC Statutes.”

FIFA recommended either removal of this provision. Similarly for Article 25, FIFA said, “We believe that in the future, this clause may inadvertently reduce the pool of individuals with valuable experience and long-standing commitment to Indian football.”

The court said its September 19 judgment clearly lays down its intent. It said, “The whole effort will be counter-productive if there is a misunderstanding or continued control by the Supreme Court.”

The bench was supported by amici curiae senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Samar Bansal along with senior advocate Raghenth Basant appearing for footballer Baichung Bhutia who said that the judgment is self-explanatory on the changes introduced to the constitution.

The court proposed a way out by asking all concerned stakeholders to have a meeting with former Supreme Court judge, L Nageswar Rao, who may communicate his views to the court. It was justice Rao who had prepared the draft constitution and submitted it for approval to the court.

Basant told the court that in the past too, AIFF has tried to use letters by FIFA to avert compliance with court orders.

Luthra said the AIFF needs to be compliant with FIFA statutes and this will be a concern before the general body. “We will need to work together to resolve it. We have already come this far,” the bench said, while assuring that it will communicate justice Rao’s views to the amicus.

The document supplied by AIFF said, “Any requirement mandating external approval or imposing conditions on the AIFF’s authority to amend its Constitution would be contrary to the principle of independence guaranteed under Article 19 of the FIFA Statutes.” It said that non-compliance with this rule can lead to imposition of sanctions on it.

The AIFF further urged the court to consider allowing members of AIFF to holds posts in state bodies as well. Incidentally, justice Rao had in his note not supported the two additions and the same came to be introduced by the court after hearing all stakeholders.

The AIFF cited the example of FIFA’s governance structure, where the FIFA Council comprises a President, eight Vice Presidents. The Vice Presidents concurrently hold office as Presidents of their respective Continental Confederations.

It was on September 19, a bench of justices Narasimha along with justice Joymalya Bagchi approved the draft AIFF Constitution and directed the same to be adopted by the General Body at its meeting to be held on October 12.

The court passed the order while dealing with an appeal filed by AIFF in 2017 challenging a decision of the Delhi high court which set aside the AIFF elections holding it to be not in compliance with the National Sports Code (NSC) of 2011.

The top court had in November 2017 stayed the HC order as it formed a committee of administrators to run the AIFF till the global football body FIFA decided to suspend the membership of AIFF. Fresh elections were held and an Executive Committee took charge and the task of finalising the Constitution of AIFF was given to justice Rao.

The court noted the unifying power of sport that promotes inclusiveness and reminded the state of its Constitutional duty to ensure that sporting facilities and opportunities flourish with institutional efficiency, integrity, professionalism, and expertise.

It went on to introduce path-breaking changes to the AIFF governance structure and functions in the interest of football’s better future. The court incorporated participation of 15 eminent players as members of the General Body, tweaked provisions to enable women representation, and directed state federations to conform to the model proposed for AIFF.