In a landmark decision that could redefine the future of Indian football, the Supreme Court of India delivered its final judgment on September 19, 2025, approving a new constitution for the All India Football Federation (AIFF). This ruling, the culmination of more than a decade of legal wrangling and administrative uncertainty, aims to instill transparency, professionalism, and accountability into the governance of Indian football, from the national body down to local associations. For a sport long mired in controversy and internal politics, this is nothing short of a seismic shift.
The roots of this transformation stretch back to 2012, when questions were raised about the AIFF’s electoral processes and their compliance with the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011. The Delhi High Court’s 2017 decision to set aside the federation’s elections set in motion a series of events that would fundamentally alter the landscape of Indian football. By 2022, the Supreme Court had appointed a Committee of Administrators (CoA)—comprising Justice Anil Dave, Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, and former India captain Bhaskar Ganguly—to draft a new constitution. The process saw multiple drafts, objections from state associations, interventions from FIFA, and extensive hearings before several benches.
Finally, with Justices P S Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi presiding, the Supreme Court greenlit the revised constitution, instructing the AIFF to adopt it without delay. The court emphasized that state football associations, despite some pushback, must align with these new standards of governance and transparency. The ruling is widely expected to propel Indian football towards greater achievements and restore faith in its leadership.
So, what’s actually changing? The new AIFF constitution is built around answers to twelve pivotal questions, each addressing a longstanding issue. Perhaps most significantly, for the first time, eminent players will have a real say in the federation’s decisions. The General Body—the highest decision-making organ—will now include 15 eminent players (with at least five women), two referees (one male, one female), two coaches, and three club representatives from the ISL, I-League, and the women’s league, in addition to state association representatives. To qualify as an “eminent player,” men must have played at least five international matches, and women two—lowered from the previous thresholds to widen the pool while ensuring genuine international experience. Domestic games won’t count toward this tally.
The Executive Committee, essentially the AIFF’s cabinet, will now consist of a President, three Vice Presidents (one of whom must be a woman), a Treasurer, and ten members—half of whom must be eminent players, including at least two women. This structure is designed to balance seasoned administrators with those who have been on the pitch, ensuring that the voices of players and women are heard at the highest levels.
Disqualifications for office have also been tightened: anyone over 70, convicted of a crime with a sentence of two years or more, serving as a minister or government servant without proper approval, banned from football, declared insolvent or of unsound mind, or who has exceeded term limits without a cooling-off period is ineligible. The court notably struck down a proposal to bar individuals merely facing criminal charges, aligning the rules with broader Indian election law. The constitution also maintains a strict stance on “indirect interest”—meaning even relatives or business partners with stakes in AIFF deals can lead to conflicts of interest. The court insisted on this, citing the precedent set by the Lodha reforms in Indian cricket.
State associations, often criticized for opacity and lack of accountability, are now required to have at least 50% of their districts affiliated, maintain transparent accounts, and ensure player representation at the state level. This measure aims to trickle down reforms from Delhi to the grassroots, ensuring that the spirit of the new constitution is felt across the country.
The influence of third parties like Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), which currently operates the Indian Super League (ISL), was a major point of contention during the hearings. The court’s order draws a clear line: while the AIFF can delegate commercial rights, it cannot surrender its core governance powers. Contracts must not jeopardize the federation’s autonomy, thereby restoring the primacy of the AIFF in managing the sport’s affairs.
One of the most celebrated changes is the embedding of promotion and relegation in domestic leagues. The constitution decisively rejects closed, franchise-only formats—common in US sports—in favor of open competition, ensuring that every club, regardless of size, has a shot at rising through the ranks. This move is widely seen as a victory for sporting integrity and the dreams of smaller clubs across the country.
Election processes have also been overhauled. Candidates can now appoint polling agents to monitor the fairness of elections, nominations must be backed by two associations, and clear timelines and notice periods are mandatory. These steps are designed to ensure that future elections are transparent and free from manipulation.
Perhaps the most striking safeguard is that no amendment to the new constitution can take effect without the Supreme Court’s explicit approval. This extraordinary provision prevents the AIFF from quietly rolling back reforms once public scrutiny fades, ensuring that the spirit of the court’s judgment endures.
Despite these sweeping changes, the court ruled that no fresh elections are needed at this time. The September 2022 elections, which produced the current Executive Committee, are deemed valid. This body will serve its four-year term until September 2026, but must operate strictly under the new constitution and remains subject to the court’s oversight. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, who played a key role in the drafting process, noted that the original call for new elections had been removed in light of the 2022 results.
The balance of power within the AIFF has shifted dramatically. For decades, the federation was seen as a closed club of administrators, many of whom were also active politicians. Now, the doors have been thrown open to players, women, referees, and coaches. Financial dealings are subject to checks, constitutional amendments require judicial oversight, and elections are bound by strict new guidelines. The Supreme Court’s judgment repeatedly references the earlier Lodha Committee reforms in cricket, making it clear that accountability is not sport-specific but universal.
As the new AIFF constitution comes into force, the Indian football community is abuzz with optimism and cautious hope. Will these reforms finally unleash the country’s footballing potential? Only time will tell. For now, the message from the highest court in the land is clear: the era of passing the ball is over. It’s time for Indian football to play by the rules—and aim for greatness.