Supreme Court sets April 23 as date of final hearing in AIFF draft constitution case

The SC bench heard arguments from Kosaraju, Bhaichung Bhutia, Rahul Mehra, Shaji Prabhakaran, among others.

The hearing in regard to proposed changes in the draft constitution for the All India Football Federation (AIFF) was taken up by the Supreme Court of India on April 22.

The apex court heard arguments from various representatives of various parties involved in the case, including senior advocate Rahul Mehra, who is the main petitioner.

An SC bench consisting of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi heard all the arguments before setting a likely final hearing date on April 23.

⚖️ AIFF Draft Constitution case — final hearing likely tomorrow | @KhelNowToday, the Supreme Court bench (Justices PS Narasimha & Joymalya Bagchi) heard arguments from Kosaraju, Bhaichung Bhutia, Rahul Mehra, Shaji Prabhakaran & others.Only the Union of India's arguments…

— Ashish Negi (@7negiashish) April 22, 2025

Also Read: Supreme Court sets April 22 as date of final hearing in AIFF draft constitution case

Promotion and relegation in top league

One of the notable legal debates that was put forth was the Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL) seeking the removal of key provisions relating to promotion and relegation in the country’s top league from the AIFF draft constitution.

The arguments put forth by the lawyers suggested that changes, if accepted, would eliminate the requirement that the top division league follow a promotion-relegation structure, which is central to global football governance under FIFA and AFC rules.

The arguments from the lawyers during the hearing contended the FSDL’s stance that financial investments and not sporting merit should govern league participation. The stance has drawn criticism from stakeholders who argue it contradicts FIFA’s emphasis on competition based on performance.

With promotion-relegation at stake, the verdict will determine whether Indian football prioritises open competition or entrenches a closed-door commercial model.

ALSO READ: Inter Kashi issue statement following AIFF’s final verdict; promise to continue quest for justice

Call for immediate elections based on new constitution

The senior advocate representing former Indian national team captain Bhaichung Bhutia raised the core contention over the deletion of Article 84.

A transitional provision that would have facilitated new elections under a reformed constitution was suggested by Justice Nageshwar Rao and reiterated by Bhutia’s legal representative.

The arguments revolved around the fact that, without this clause, critical decisions are being made by an executive committee and are not broadly represented by people around the game.

The submissions from the senior advocate also cited FIFA’s Statutes and a global governance study, underscoring that most footballing nations include players, coaches, and referees in their national associations.

India remains among the few countries where only regional associations dominate, limiting broader participation for players, coaches, and referees who have been around and understand the game.

The senior advocate called for the reintroduction of Article 84 to ensure a fair transition and elections under the new constitution, while asserting that it is essential for Indian football’s democratic future and compliance with international regulations.

Contention over elected representatives holding multiple posts

One of the key arguments raised by senior advocate Rahul Mehra was the issue of dual posts being held by elected members at the district level who hold positions at the national level.

Mehra contested that, particularly the habitual practice of office-bearers switching roles or holding concurrent posts at different organisational levels and sports federations, is problematic.

He stated, “People who have been there at the state level, once they don the hat of that, and wear the hat of national level, then they should not, should not be the office bearers at the state level.” He argued that while club representatives are stakeholders, they should not hold direct voting rights at the national level.

Their influence should remain at the district level to avoid dual voting privileges.

Another practical issue raised by the senior advocate was the manipulation of domicile criteria. Counsel noted that candidates were contesting from regions they had no ties to and should be stopped from securing a seat from faraway areas.

The SC bench did take these suggestions and is gearing up to hear the final argument regarding the AIFF draft constitution from the Union of India on April 23.

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.