'Marks new beginning in Indian football': SC approves AIFF constitution with changes
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday approved the draft constitution of All India Football Federation (AIFF) with certain changes as it asked for its adoption by the federation within four weeks.
The top court called it a “new beginning for Indian football" which is set take the "sport to greater heights".
The top court directed the national football body to call for a special general body meeting to adopt the draft constitution prepared by its former judge L Nageswara Rao.
“We have approved the provisions of the constitution in the said terms. We direct the AIFF administration to call for a special general body meeting and adopt the draft constitution with the modifications in this judgment. This shall be done at the earliest, preferably within four weeks,” a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi said.
The 78-page verdict authored by Justice Narasimha dealt with 12 issues, such as membership, its suspension, age bar, conflict of interest pertaining to AIFF and state football associations.
The top court said the draft constitution will be applicable to the state associations as well despite their resistance.
The top court said “the inclusion of eminent players, coaches, referees, and club representatives in the general body, with only further good governance, heralds transparency and fair play”.
The bench said it was not appropriate to have continuous monitoring of a sports federation by any forum, including the Supreme Court.
“Having taken up the matter and ensured that the Constitution is brought to this stage, it is necessary to take it to its logical end. Our monitoring will only be that far and no further,” it said.
The top court also refused to interfere with the tenure of the current executive committee of the AIFF headed by the president Kalyan Chaubey and said they were elected for a term of four years, their term will expire in 2026, which means that the current executive committee will continue only till September 2026, which is less than a year from today.
“The current executive committee can be treated as a permanent body which shall discharge its function in accordance with the relevant laws as well as the AIFF constitution,” it said.
Dealing with the contentious issue of applicability of AIFF constitution to state associations, the bench said it was important that all the constituent units and associations lower in hierarchy observed the pyramidical structure of Indian football.
They must therefore implement the same level of discipline, fairness, transparency, and good governance quotients applied at the very top, it added.
“In view of the FIFA statute, the relevant comments of Justice L N Rao and on analysis of the far-reaching implications of this provision, we are not inclined to accept the argument that the AIFF Constitution ought not be extended to the state associations and local bodies,” the bench said.
The top court modified the criteria for "eminent player" who is the member of the executive committee of the AIFF and said he should a past player, who has been retired for at least two years, and has represented India (senior) in at least seven competitive matches (men)/three competitive matches (women) sanctioned by FIFA/AFC.
"It will be reasonable to reduce the criteria suggested by Justice L N Rao, to five matches for men and from two matches for women. We hope that such a modification will ensure a wider pool and participation by retired players who will prove themselves to be efficient administrators and guiding lights for Indian football,” the bench said.
The bench further said the term "office bearers" must be understood in the context of the functioning of the AIFF and the reform that needs to be brought about.
“This definition will have a direct bearing on the applicability of cooling-off, the term, tenure and age limit. On the other hand, the inclusive definition will be consistent with the reforms that have been introduced and applied as independent measures for the vibrant working of the federation…” it said.
The top court accepted the suggestion of AIFF to increase the number of vice presidents to three including a woman and said, “Such an amendment will enable women’s representation and, at the same time, confine the number of the executive committee to fifteen members."
On the issue of disqualification, the verdict included aspects such as criminal charges and conviction of members of AIFF and state associations as it accepted the norms applied in the case related to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
The bench modified the provision of disqualification based on framing of charge to the standard as envisaged in the judgement of BCCI -- “conviction followed by a sentence of imprisonment”.
The top court said if a public servant had necessary approval of the government, then there should not be a problem for them to become a member of the football body.
Several other modifications were also made in the draft constitution in consonance with the national sports code.
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.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
