Indian football is on the cusp of a new era as the Supreme Court of India has officially approved a revised Constitution for the All India Football Federation (AIFF), a move that both the federation and the wider football community hope will bring long-awaited stability and progress to the sport. This landmark decision, delivered on September 22, 2025, by Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, is the culmination of years of administrative turbulence, FIFA suspensions, and persistent calls for reform within Indian football’s governing structures.
The Supreme Court’s ruling directs the AIFF administration to convene a special general body meeting and formally adopt the new Constitution, complete with the modifications laid out in the judgment, within the next four weeks. The Court’s optimism is clear: “We are of the firm opinion that the Constitution, once adopted in terms of Article 84, will mark a new beginning for Indian football and take the sport to greater heights.”
This moment follows a tumultuous period for Indian football. The AIFF, established in 1937, has long struggled to keep pace with global standards. Its initial affiliation with FIFA took over a decade, and for much of its history, the federation was mired in inefficiency, regionalism, and a disconnect between its administrators and the players. Matters reached a crisis point in August 2022, when FIFA suspended the AIFF for what it called “third-party influence” after the Supreme Court appointed a committee of administrators (CoA) to run the federation. The suspension was lifted only after the CoA’s mandate was terminated and fresh elections were held on September 2, 2022, bringing a new Executive Committee to power.
The drafting of the new Constitution was entrusted to former Supreme Court Justice L Nageswara Rao, whose previous experience with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) proved invaluable. Justice Rao’s draft incorporated extensive stakeholder feedback and was submitted to both FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) before being presented to the Supreme Court. According to Justice Rao, “A mail was sent by FIFA on 29.07.2023 conveying that they have no further objections except a few suggestions that were made to certain clauses in the draft Constitution,” and these amendments were duly incorporated.
FIFA’s primary concerns revolved around the percentage of player representation in the AIFF’s constitutional bodies, conflict of interest provisions, and the specter of third-party intervention in the federation’s governance. The Supreme Court addressed these head-on, reinstating critical clauses on conflict of interest. As per the judgment, “they are against holding two offices at the same time. Second, they will ensure that an official at the national federation is not overworked with responsibilities at a member association and vice versa.” Now, any individual elected as an office-bearer in the AIFF’s executive committee who also holds a position in a state association must vacate the latter post immediately.
One lingering concern is whether the Supreme Court’s stipulation that any amendment to the Constitution must be approved by the Court itself could be seen as ongoing third-party influence, a red flag for FIFA’s statutes. However, officials stress that this is only a temporary measure until the Constitution is adopted by the general body. The Supreme Court itself clarified, “it is not appropriate to have continuous monitoring (by the courts). Once the process is brought to its logical end (with adoption by the general body), such monitoring will not be needed.”
The judgment also tackled several other contentious issues. The Court settled the long-running debate over the representation of eminent players in the federation’s general body, confirming that at least 15 former players—who have played a minimum of five matches for men or two for women—will have voting rights. This, the Court hopes, will “ensure a wider pool and participation by retired players who will prove themselves to be efficient administrators and guiding lights for Indian football.”
As for the leadership structure, the Court sided with the AIFF’s proposal to increase the number of vice presidents to three, mandating that at least one be a woman. This change, the Court believes, “will enable women’s representation and, at the same time, confine the number of the executive committee to 15 members.” The definition of office bearers was also expanded beyond just the President, Treasurer, and Secretary, acknowledging the need for a more robust and accountable leadership team.
On the question of public servants’ eligibility, the Court ruled that being a minister or government servant should not be an automatic disqualification, provided the individual obtains the necessary government permissions. This nuanced approach aims to balance professional standards with the realities of Indian sports administration.
Conflict of interest provisions were further strengthened, with the Court insisting on the inclusion of both direct and indirect interests in the definition. The Constitution’s applicability to state associations and local bodies was also confirmed, in line with FIFA’s statutes and the need for cohesive governance across all levels of Indian football.
The Court addressed the issue of third-party commercial rights, clarifying that while the AIFF may enter into contractual arrangements, these must remain within the boundaries set by the Constitution. With the current Master Rights Agreement set to expire in 2025, this provision is particularly timely.
Promotion and relegation systems, which have been a point of contention in Indian football, were also discussed. The Court noted that as of April 3, 2025, the Indian men’s team ranked 127th in the world, and emphasized that “healthy competition in Indian football shall only benefit and take the sport to new heights.” The current provisions were deemed sufficient to foster this competitive environment.
Other important amendments include requirements for candidates to be citizens and residents of India, the inclusion of siblings in the definition of ‘immediate family’ for conflict of interest purposes, and clearer procedures for suspensions, resignations, and acting presidential appointments. The disciplinary committee will now be more inclusive, with legal experts ensuring due process, and the grievance redressal mechanism has been streamlined to provide expedited decisions, especially when a player’s participation in an event is at stake.
The enactment of the National Sports Governance Act 2025 during this process also influenced several constitutional provisions, ensuring that the AIFF’s governance now aligns with the latest national standards for sports federations.
As the AIFF awaits final confirmation from FIFA that the new Constitution meets all international requirements, the Indian football community is holding its breath. Will these sweeping reforms finally usher in an era of professionalism, transparency, and growth for the beautiful game in India? For now, the ball is in the AIFF’s court—and the world is watching.
With the AIFF’s special general body meeting just weeks away, the next chapter in Indian football’s governance drama is about to unfold. If all goes according to plan, Indian football could soon have the stable, modern administration it has long deserved.
