AIFF says truncated ISL gets AFC recognition; ISL, Super Cup champions to get indirect slots
New Delhi (PTI): The All India Football Federation (AIFF) on Thursday said the sport's continental body AFC has accorded recognition to the truncated 2025-26 Indian Super League with winners of the country's top two divisions getting indirect slots to Asian Champions League 2 through zonal qualifiers.
Due to a delayed start to the season, the clubs will not be able to play the mandatory 24 matches in the season -- including top division league and domestic cup -- to be eligible to feature in the AFC Champions League 2.
Most clubs are expected to play a total of sixteen (16) matches during the season, including a minimum of three (3) games in the AIFF Super Cup and 13 in ISL.
"With the exception of any additional slot(s) allocated to a Member Association in accordance with Articles 3.4 and 3.5, Member Associations that fail to fulfil the Member Association Eligibility Criteria shall, subject to Article 4.4, be eligible to be allocated only indirect slots for the relevant AFC Club Competition," the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) wrote in a letter to the AIFF dated January 15.
"In such cases, the number of direct slots for the relevant Member Association(s) in the relevant AFC Club Competition shall be wholly converted into indirect slots (e.g. 2+1 becomes 0+3)," Shin Man Gil, the AFC's deputy general secretary, competitions and football, said in the letter.
The 2025-26 season of the ISL is scheduled to begin on February 14, with all 14 teams confirming their participation on Tuesday. Ninety-one matches will be played in the curtailed season, with each team playing single-leg matches (13) against each other.
"In light of the foregoing, kindly be informed that, should the 2025/26 ISL s season be organised as proposed in your letter, Article 4.3 of the Entry Regulations shall apply for the purposes of entry into the relevant AFC club competitions," the AFC letter stated.
Earlier, the ISL clubs had urged the AIFF to request the AFC for a one-time relaxation in the minimum requirement of 24 matches so that they can play in the ACL 2.
Heeding to the club's proposal, AIFF's deputy secretary general M. Satyanarayan wrote to the AFC, seeking a one-time exemption for this season.
"In light of the exceptional circumstances impacting Indian football this season, we respectfully request that your esteemed office grant the AIFF and the clubs participating in the ISL, a one-time exemption from the minimum requirements set forth in the AFC Regulations."
"Specifically, we request that a minimum of sixteen (16) matches be deemed sufficient for clubs participating in the ISL to qualify for direct entry into club competitions organized by the AFC, and the ISL season scheduled to take place between 14 February 2026 and […] along with the Super Cup held between 25 October 2025 and 7 December 2025, be considered to be sufficient for the purposes of maintaining direct entry slots in the relevant club competitions organized by AFC.
"Such an exemption would significantly support the AIFF's efforts to restart the league, serve as an important encouragement to the clubs during this challenging period for all stakeholders in Indian football," Satyanarayan added.
Last Saturday, the AIFF had asked the clubs to send the details of the venues where they plan to play their home games to start working on the fixture and finalise broadcast and commercial rights partners.
The ISL 2025-26 season has been in a limbo since the AIFF's commercial partner FSDL, owned by the Reliance Group, put it on hold last July due to uncertainty over the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) between the two parties.
The MRA ended on December 8, 2025 as negotiations fell through.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Dileep case: Advocate representing survivor alleges Judge favoured actor
Thiruvanthapuram: A month after Malayalam film Actor Dileep was acquitted in the the case pertaining to abduction and rape of a famous Malayalam actress, Advocate T B Mini, the survivor's counsel in the case has accussed the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese of favouring Actor Dileep in her petition to the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, reported On Manorama.
In her petition(accessed by Onmanorama), Mini has sought contempt of court proceedings against Honey Varghese alleging that the trial court judge made derisive remarks about her, including claims that she would doze off during court proceedings and was lax in handling the actress assault case.
Mini, who described the comments as false, contemptuous and defamatory, alleged in her petition that Honey Varghese had unduly favoured Dileep, the actor and producer who was the eighth accused in the case.
In the verdict delivered in December last year, Judge Honey Varghese acquitted Dileep and three other accused while sentencing six convicts to imprisonment.
The ruling drew major uproar, while Mini had refrained from making any public remarks against the judge at the time, stating only that the verdict was disappointing, now she has levelled serious allegations against the judge as the High Court is set to begin hearing the bail pleas filed by the six convicts on February 4.
Furthermore, Mini has stated in her petition that since the very first stage of the trial, the Judge Honey Varghese passed derogatory remarks against the survivor and behaved discourteously towards the prosecution, which eventually led to the resignation of two Special Public Prosecutors. According to Mini, the undue favour shown by Honey Varghese to Dileep resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice and brought disrepute to the judicial system.
She stated in the petition that it was a regular practice of Honey Varghese to pass derogatory comments about the survivor as well as the prosecution witnesses.
Mini also alleged that on several occasions, the Special Public Prosecutor was compelled to remind the judge that such conduct was in violation of the Supreme Court’s directions.
Mini also questioned the manner in which Honey Varghese conducted the inquiry into the illegal access of the memory card containing visuals of the sexual assault.
The memory card, a vital piece of evidence kept in the custody of the Sessions Court, was unlawfully accessed and tampered with, leading to a change in its hash value.
According to the report, an examination by the State Forensic Science Laboratory found that the card had been accessed on January 9, 2018, December 13, 2018, and July 19, 2021, while it was under the safe custody of different courts.
Mini stated in the petition that the memory card was illegally accessed for nearly half an hour in July 2021 while it was in the custody of the court presided over by Honey Varghese.
After the survivor approached the High Court citing a breach of privacy, the HC directed Honey Varghese to conduct an inquiry. Mini alleged that the judge carried out only a perfunctory inquiry, in violation of the High Court’s directions.
Mini has sought legal action against Honey Varghese, stating that when a lawyer is defamed in open court through false allegations, the judge is liable to face proceedings before the High Court. She noted in the petition that although she had a very limited role in the trial as the survivor’s counsel, she regularly attended the proceedings from November 2022 onward.
