AIFF draft constitution hearing concludes; SC sets final judgment timeline

The SC bench heard final comments from notable senior advocates and set a timeline for a verdict in the case.

The Supreme Court of India heard the final comments from senior advocates, representing each of the parties, regarding the proposed changes in the draft constitution for the All India Football Federation (AIFF) on April 30.

The apex court heard all the final observations on all the recent proceedings over the AIFF draft constitution held in front of the bench consisting of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi.

Senior advocates Rahul Mehra, Menaka Guruswamy, and Amici Curiae Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Samar Bansal, among other lawyers, made their final arguments. The SC bench has now set the timeline for a reading of the final judgment, which is expected to be after the annual summer vacation starting from May 24, 2025, to July 14, 2025.

⚖️ @KhelNow Today, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, asked FSDL & AIFF that the MRA can not be renewed or any other significant steps can not be taken in AIFF till the final decision of the AIFF Draft Constitution case, which is likely…

— Ashish Negi (@7negiashish) April 30, 2025

State associations break down inconsistencies by Union of India

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy opened the proceedings in front of the SC bench while referring to the AIFF audit pages and broke down the inconsistencies in the arguments made by Solicitor General KM Natraj for the Union of India as opposed to what is stated in the National Sports Code.

She highlighted that while Mr. Natraj claimed that eminent players can vote in the national sports federation general body meetings, she claimed it to be different.

She pointed out, stating, “This is categorically wrong, para 2, page 4, clauses 3.9 and 3.10, national sports state that individuals do not have a right to vote in national sports federation general body meetings.”She also broke down several other arguments which were made and showed how there were some inaccurate submissions from the Union of India.

ALSO READ: Mumbai City FC vs Jamshedpur FC Live: Follow Kalinga Super Cup 2025 Live Updates

Rahul Mehra shares final comments on AIFF draft constitution hearing

The main petitioner in the case, senior advocate Rahul Mehra, also shared his final comments from all the proceedings. He brought out how the Sports Code categorically refers to a minimum 25 per cent representation in the AIFF General Body and AIFF Executive Committee.

He stated, “The Sports Code, contrary to what is being stated by AIFF and state sports federations, sports court categorically refers to a minimum of 25 per cent representation both in the General Body and in the Executive Committee.”

Senior advocate Mehra also highlighted how the disqualification charges were an aspect that the Union of India also changed their mind. He stated, “In fact, in 2012-13, it is the IOC, which had mandated IOA to accept it, and we were suspended then because there were two individuals.”

He added, “The IOC, which is the whole parent body, and from where the entire Milord’s water flows down, says that it has to be charges framed and can’t be conviction in 2013-14. And every time it is stated that international statutes and people will suspend us and bodies will suspend India, and wherever it’s inconvenient, those very references are not looked at.”

In his closing remarks he stated, “Favor with the reform process, then it should not be prospective, but retrospective it should immediately come into existence, because all these people have been holding force for more than decades, in some cases, two, three, three, four, four decades, uninterrupted tenures, and therefore, enough notice has been issued to them they are privy to these litigations, and therefore, it must stop somewhere and it must stop immediately.”

He also called out the bogey of international federations being portrayed as something larger than their actual influence.

He appealed to the SC bench that the seven AIFF officials who have a contempt petition must be sent to jail as a message to prevent any future incidents.

Following senior advocate Mehra’s final comments, amici curiae Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Samar Bansal shared their final comments, which also summed up all the main arguments and raised one major, crucial detail with regard to the Master Rights Agreement (MRA).

SC bench stays renewal of Master Rights Agreement between AIFF and FSDL

In conclusion, the SC bench also instructed all parties, especially the AIFF and FSDL, to hold off on renewing the Master Rights Agreement, which is set to expire in December 2025. They stated that everyone present agreed that no final decisions are to be taken in that regard and called for waiting on the final judgement till mid-July.

The SC bench stated, “Every decision will be taken subject to our order. No contracts, no agreements have a binding case. Nothing will bind our decision and our elections. All decisions to be taken in the interim. In that sense, though your term might continue, but everything will be subject to the elections which will be held as per our direction.”

The SC bench did hear all the final and closing remarks and will now gear up to present their final judgment, regarding the AIFF draft constitution, estimated for mid-July of this year.

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.