No more passing the ball: SC orders AIFF to own top league, enforce promotion in final order

On September 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered its final judgment on the long-pending restructuring of the All India Football Federation (AIFF).

With this, the AIFF now has a freshly approved constitution designed to bring transparency, professionalism, and accountability into the governance of Indian football.

The Court’s order marks the culmination of nearly a decade of litigation, controversies, and administrative uncertainties that had stalled the sport’s growth.

The legal battles began as far back as 2012, when questions were raised about AIFF’s elections violating the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.

In 2017, the Delhi High Court set aside the federation’s elections, and by 2022 the Supreme Court had to appoint a Committee of Administrators (CoA) comprising Justice Anil Dave, Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, and former India captain Bhaskar Ganguly to draft a new constitution .

What followed was a series of drafts, objections from state associations, interventions by FIFA, and detailed hearings before multiple benches.

Finally, the Court has given the green light to a finalised document.

What the new constitution says? 

The Court’s judgment is built around twelve big questions, from whether retired footballers should get voting rights to whether the AIFF can hand over its powers to private companies.

The answers now form the provisions of the Constitution.

1. Eminent players get a Seat at the Table

For decades, footballers watched from the sidelines as administrators made the decisions. The new Constitution changes that.

The General Body – AIFF’s highest decision-making organ – will now include:

• 15 eminent players (with at least 5 women)
• 2 referees (one male, one female)
• 2 coaches
• 3 club representatives (from ISL, I-League, and the women’s league)
• State association representatives
• Justice Rao had set the bar at 7 international matches for men, 3 for women. The Court lowered it further: 5 matches for men, 2 for women, recognising India’s limited pool of internationals. Domestic games won’t count. The idea is to widen the pool while ensuring true international experience.

2. Office-Bearers and Vice Presidents

The Executive Committee – AIFF’s Cabinet – will consist of:

• President
• 3 Vice Presidents (one must be a woman)
• 1 Treasurer
• 10 members (half of them eminent players, including 2 women)
• This balances political administrators with footballers, while ensuring women’s representation.

One of the most hotly debated parts was who should be barred from office. The final Constitution disqualifies:

• Anyone over 70 years old
• Anyone convicted of a crime with 2+ years’ imprisonment
• Anyone who is a minister or government servant (public servants may still serve if they secure government approval)
• Anyone serving a ban from football
• Those declared insolvent or of unsound mind
• Those who exceed term limits without a cooling-off period
• The Court struck down an earlier proposal that even “charge-framed” individuals (not yet convicted) should be barred — bringing it in line with how election law works in India.

The Constitution retains the idea of “indirect interest.” That means even if your relative or business partner has a stake in an AIFF deal, you could be in conflict.

AIFF argued this was too broad but the Court insisted on keeping it, citing cricket’s Lodha reforms.

3. State Associations under watch

The new Constitution is binding not just on AIFF but also on all state associations. They must:

• Have at least 50% of their districts affiliated,
• Provide transparency in accounts,
• Ensure representation of players at state level too

This ensures the reforms trickle down from Delhi to grassroots football.

4. Third Parties Like FSDL: Limited power

Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), the commercial partner that runs the ISL, loomed large over proceedings. The Court drew red lines:

AIFF can delegate commercial rights but cannot surrender governance powers.

Contracts must not “jeopardize the autonomy” of AIFF.

This provision reins in private dominance and restores AIFF’s primacy.

5. Promotion and relegation protected

For competitive integrity, the Constitution embeds promotion and relegation in domestic leagues. Closed, franchise-only formats (like in US sports) were rejected. Every club, no matter how small, must have the chance to rise.

6. Election reforms

Election bye-laws were overhauled:

• Candidates can appoint polling agents to monitor fairness.
• Nomination requires backing by two associations.
• Clear timelines and notice periods must be followed.

7. Amendments need supreme Court leave

Perhaps the most striking provision: no amendment to the Constitution can take effect without the Supreme Court’s approval. This unusual safeguard prevents AIFF from quietly rolling back reforms once public attention fades.

Transition and Elections

The Supreme Court has ruled that no fresh elections are required now.

Although the CoA’s original draft called for a new poll after the Constitution’s approval, Justice L. Nageswara Rao removed that clause, noting that the September 2022 elections had already produced a duly elected Executive Committee.

Accepting this view, the Court held that the 2022 body is a permanent committee for its four-year term, ending in September 2026, but must operate strictly under the new Constitution and remains subject to the Court’s oversight.

The balance of power

At the heart of the judgment lies a rebalancing of power. For decades, AIFF functioned as a closed club of administrators, often doubling as politicians.

Now, the federation has to share space with players, women, referees, and coaches. Its financial deals are checked, its amendments supervised by the Court, its elections bound by strict timelines.

This is not the AIFF of old. It is an institution restructured by constitutional logic – where checks and balances matter as much as goals and trophies.

If all this sounds familiar, it is because the Supreme Court’s judgment repeatedly referenced its earlier Lodha Committee reforms in cricket.

Just as cricket was rescued from entrenched political capture, football is now being nudged towards professionalism.

The Court refused to accept the argument that “football is different.” Accountability, it said, is universal.