Supreme Court ruling on AIFF draft constitution case brings promotion-relegation, player voting rights and questions over FIFA ban

The Supreme Court pronounced the judgment on the AIFF draft constitution case earlier on Friday.

The Supreme Court put an end to the protracted litigation on the All India Football Federation (AIFF) draft constitution with its final judgment on Friday. The judgment was delivered by the bench of Justice Narasimha & Justice A. S. Chandurkar. However, it was Justice Joymalya Bagchi alongside Justice Narsimha who presided over the matter till its last hearing.

With the final judgment, the court has ordered the AIFF to adopt the draft constitution within four weeks in a special general body meeting. This timeline is important considering FIFA has also set the deadline of October 30, 2025, for the constitution to be finalised, to avoid a ban.

“We direct the AIFF administration to call for a special general body meeting and adopt the draftConstitution with the modifications in this judgment.

This shall be done at the earliest, preferably within 4 weeks. We are of the firm opinion that the Constitution, once adopted in terms of Article 84, will mark a new beginning for Indian football and take the sport to greater heights,” the final judgement read.

The much-awaited Supreme Court's judgement on the AIFF Draft Constitution case is out now! #IndianFootball #AIFF pic.twitter.com/Z3UdKPXHjx

— Khel Now (@KhelNow) September 19, 2025

Also Read: Supreme Court orders AIFF to adopt new constitution in four weeks; no fresh elections

What were the issues for consideration?

The Supreme Court, while examining objections to the draft AIFF Constitution, addressed the contentious issue of including eminent players in the General Body. State associations opposed granting them voting rights, citing FIFA Statutes and the National Sports Code (NSC) 2011, which primarily emphasised representation through member associations.

However, the Court noted that clause 3.20 of NSC 2011 specifically allows “prominent sportspersons of outstanding merit” to have voting rights, creating a clear exception to clauses 3.9 and 3.10. The Court further highlighted that FIFA’s Standard Statutes, as well as global practice across other football associations, support the inclusion of players, coaches, referees, and clubs as stakeholders with voting rights.

Justice Nageswara Rao confirmed that Article 20.2 of the draft AIFF Constitution, which provides for 15 eminent players (including at least five women) in the General Body, had been finalised in consultation with FIFA.

The Court concluded that the provision does not undermine the democratic structure, since state associations will still hold over 62% representation, and instead strengthens governance, transparency, and fair play within Indian football administration.

“We are of the opinion that the freedom of choice to form an association is not in any way compromised by the requirement to incorporate 15 eminent players.

The democratic setup of the federation is not destabilised as the elected member associates certainly continue to hold more than 62% as the NSC 2011 under clause 3.20 only suggests that the number of prominent sportspersons should be a minimum of 25% which means that 29 model provision has not prohibited a number larger than 25%.

It is not probable but certain that the inclusion of eminent players, coaches, referees, and club representatives in the general body, with only further good governance, heralds transparency and fair play,” the order stated.

Promotion-relegation enshrined in the draft constitution

In a major development, the draft has mentioned promotion and relegation as one of the important tenets of professional leagues in India. Promotion and relegation have always been a point of contention with various stakeholders not in favour of introducing it into the top division, the Indian Super League.

Article 1.54 of the proposed draft mentions – “Seniormost Top Division League” shall mean the league competition owned, operated, and recognised by the AIFF, that implements the principles of promotion and relegation, and meets all requirements prescribed by the AFC for being eligible to obtain a direct slot in the AFC Champions League.

As per the Supreme Court’s detailed order, the new AIFF constitution includes:1️⃣ Promotion & relegation added2️⃣ Top league to be owned & operated by AIFFBoth points were opposed by FSDL. #IndianFootball @KhelNow

— Ashish Negi (@7negiashish) September 19, 2025

FSDL, the current commercial partner of AIFF, opposed the introduction of promotion-relegation to the top division, but the objections have been set aside by the apex court. This will have a consequential impact on the future of the Indian Super League as it transitions into a new phase.

‘Third-party intervention’ by the Supreme Court?

There is an important portion of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court that has drawn negative attention. Article 23 of the proposed constitution talks about the amendment and the modes that can be adopted to amend the AIFF constitution.

“Article 23.1. The AIFF Constitution, Schedules thereto and Regulations can be amended at a Meeting of the AIFF, provided that such provisions shall not be repealed, added to, amended or altered except when a resolution to that effect is passed and adopted by a 75% (seventy five percent) majority of the members present and entitled to vote at a Special General Meeting of the General Body convened for the purpose or at any Annual General Meeting. The quorum for any such Meeting shall be 75% of the total strength of the General Body.”

“Article 23.2. Any proposals for an amendment to this Constitution must be submitted in writing by at least 3 (three) members jointly with a brief explanation to the AIFF General Secretariat by a Member or by a member of the Executive Committee 25 (twenty-five) days before the date of the concerned meeting.”

Let's see how FIFA will interpret this and find it to be third-party interference? For Now – “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. "And there is no definition of when this… https://t.co/H4h5t955pT

— Ashish Negi (@7negiashish) September 19, 2025

AIFF directed to approach SC for amendment of new constitution if required

The court’s observation about Article 23 has raised eyebrows. The court has remarked, after incorporating the suggestions of various stakeholders regarding the fears of inappropriate amendments to the constitution, that can defeat the purpose.

“In this view, 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 acceptedfor the present.”

Will the SC observation account for third-party intervention?

For now, there is no definitive answer to this question, and it will largely depend on the interpretation of FIFA.

It is important to note that the court has also said, “However, we are of the clear view that 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. Our monitoring will only be that far and no further.”

This comment by the apex court gives hope that there will not be any indulgence in the administration of the federation, allaying the fears of third-party intervention. But there is no mention of a timeline to determine

“Our monitoring will only be that far and no further”, and this can create chaos if FIFA interprets it as third-party intervention.

For more updates, follow Khel Now on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube; download the Khel Now Android App or IOS App and join our community on Whatsapp & Telegram.