The All India Football Federation’s state units have refused to accept the contentious ‘representation clause’ that was up for adoption under the Supreme Court’s directive.
The apex issued a clarification on the matter on 15th October, giving AIFF three weeks to adopt it. Once approved by the majority of the members, it would have been placed before AIFF’s annual general meeting, tentatively scheduled before December 22, for ratification.
But according to reports revealed by News9 Sports, the plan now is going to be decided by votes in the Special General Meeting (SGM), as around 20 state associations out of 33 have officially informed their decision to reject the clause that prevents them from representing their respective states if they are elected into AIFF’s executive committee.
Article 25.3 (c) states: “In the event a person is elected as an Office-Bearer in the Executive Committee of the AIFF and holds a position of an Office-Bearer in a Member Association, he/she shall automatically be deemed to have vacated his/her position in the Member Association.
“(d) Similarly, in the event that a person is elected as an Office-Bearer in a Member Association and holds a position of an Office-Bearer in the Executive Committee of the AIFF, he/she shall automatically be deemed to have vacated his/her position in the Member Association.”
However, on Thursday, AIFF was compelled to convene another special general meeting on 24th November at its Football House headquarters in New Delhi for voting on the adoption of the articles and to seek approval for the AIFF president, Kalyan Chaubey, to sign the final version of the constitution.
However, the AIFF president was also directed to file an affidavit confirming its adoption once the current Chaubey-led dispensation’s term ends in September 2026.
Its adoption would have meant that at least 13 of the present 22-member executive committee would have had to resign from either their respective states or the Ex Co.
“There will be no coordination between states and AIFF if the article is adopted. On Oct 12, SGM members had suggested AIFF file a review petition of clause 25.3,” a state official commented on condition of anonymity.
Hence, it was not adopted. AIFF should now file a fresh request for review at the Supreme Court for the greater interest of sports.
