The Supreme Court has issued a significant clarification on the long-debated AIFF Constitution, clearing confusion over article 23.3 and articles 25.3(c) and 25.3(d).
The latest order says Article 23.3 does not need to be adopted. Articles 25.3(c) and 25.3(d) will be formally adopted. However, these will take effect only after the elections next year, once the current executive committee’s term ends in 2026.
This clarification comes shortly after the All India Football Federation (AIFF) formally adopted its new constitution on 12th October, during a special general body meeting held in New Delhi. The adoption marked the end of a long and complicated legal journey that had delayed structural reforms in Indian football for years.
Article 23.3 had sparked major concerns within the federation and from FIFA, as it required AIFF to seek the Supreme Court’s approval for any constitutional amendments.
The Supreme Court acknowledged this concern and made it clear that continuous judicial supervision of a sports body is not appropriate. The bench, led by Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, noted that the AIFF will instead be governed by the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, and any subordinate regulations that may be formed under it.
The court also addressed the debate around Articles 25.3(c) and 25.3(d), which bar AIFF officials from holding simultaneous positions in state associations. While the provisions were found to be consistent with both Indian law and FIFA regulations, enforcing them immediately would have forced several current office-holders.
According to Article 25.3 (c and d), an office bearer in AIFF’s executive committee can’t hold a position as an office bearer in a member association, which was viewed as adverse to the FIFA charter.
The two-member SC bench observed that “they are not in conflict with any laws, regulations, or even FIFA Charter. The apprehensions about the unavailability of experienced personnel to man AIFF and other member associations if these Articles are incorporated are speculative.
“No credible data is placed before us to sustain such apprehension. We are, therefore, of the opinion that these Articles shall be retained.
“We may also clarify that the said Articles, like many others, would be subject to the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, and the subordinate legislation that may be framed thereunder.”
But since the immediate consequence of the adoption of this clause would have led to “practical problem” of the majority of the federation’s office bearers, needing to resign from their posts, the Court said that Articles 25.3(c) and (d) need not be applied to the present office bearers as their term is expiring in September 2026.
The AIFF has given an undertaking promising to formally adopt Articles 25.3 (c and d), “but it may be given effect to after the term of the present executive expires in September 2026”.
“In our judgment, we permitted the present executive to continue till the end of its term in order to ensure that there is minimal disruption to the already delayed sporting events,” the Court said.
“In the same line, and to subserve the same purpose, we direct AIFF to adopt Articles 25.3(c) and (d) within three weeks from today, as undertaken by Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Counsel on behalf of AIFF. Articles 25.3(c) and 25.3(d) will, however, come into effect after the present executive demits office.”
