The Supreme Court Today (April 30) reserved its judgment on the finalization of the AIFF’s draft constitution, proposing major reforms like tenure limits and age restrictions for office bearers. The draft aims to improve governance in Indian football and introduce new provisions for removing officials.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today reserved its judgment on the matter of finalizing the draft constitution of the All India Football Federation (AIFF), which was prepared by former Supreme Court judge, Justice L. Nageswara Rao.
The bench, which consisted of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, listened to arguments from several prominent senior lawyers, including Ranjit Kumar, Rahul Mehra, and amicus curiae Gopal Sankaranarayanan, before reserving their verdict.
Over the course of several days, the bench considered objections to the draft constitution raised by various state football associations and former football players. These objections were addressed clause by clause during the hearings.
The draft constitution, which was prepared by Justice Rao following the Supreme Court’s instructions, suggests several significant changes to the governance of AIFF. Among the key proposals is the limit on the tenure of any individual in office.
The draft suggests that a person can hold office for a maximum of 12 years during their lifetime, subject to the condition that they do not serve more than two consecutive terms of four years each.
The draft also proposes a “cooling off period” of four years after a person has served eight years as an office bearer of the football federation. Moreover, it states that no person should remain a member of the AIFF after reaching the age of 70.
The proposed draft also recommends the structure of the executive committee of AIFF. The executive committee would consist of 14 members, all of whom would be subject to age and tenure restrictions. The committee would include one president, two vice presidents (one male and one female), one treasurer, and 10 other members.
Among the 10 other members, five would be distinguished players, with at least two of them being women.
Another major feature of the draft constitution is the introduction of a provision for the removal of office bearers, including the president, through a no-confidence motion. This is a significant change, as the existing constitution of AIFF does not have any such provision.
The Supreme Court reserved its judgment after hearing the case, which began on March 25. Earlier, during the hearings, Senior Advocate Sankaranarayanan referred to important clauses in the AIFF’s constitution and pointed out that some members and former players had raised objections to specific provisions of the draft.
In response to these concerns, the Supreme Court asked Justice Rao to prepare the AIFF constitution in line with the Court’s directions. The bench further reviewed the draft constitution and instructed Justice Rao to prepare a report after taking into account the objections raised by several stakeholders regarding various aspects of the proposed constitution.
As the hearing continued, the bench noted that the case involved the finalization of the AIFF’s constitution, with the Court reviewing the objections of football stakeholders in the country.
“In certain respects, the suggestions to the draft constitution were accepted except those in breach of either the judgments of this court or the national sports code,”
-the bench observed.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on AIFF
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
