Finalization of the AIFF Constitution and its link to the National Sports Governance Act, 2025.

On September 19, 2025, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered long-awaited closure to one of the country’s most protracted sports governance litigations. The Court approved and finalised a draft constitution for the All India Football Federation (AIFF), directing its members to adopt the document within four weeks.

The order comes against the backdrop of the recently enacted National Sports Governance Act, 2025, which seeks to overhaul Indian sports administration on principles of transparency, democracy, and accountability. In its remarks, the Bench expressed hope that the new framework would bring structural reform and align Indian football with the constitutional ideal of fraternity in collective pursuits.

“This is not just about football,” the Court observed. “It is about reforming the governance of Indian sport itself—making it more transparent, accountable, and democratic.”

A Litigation Dating Back to 2017

The September 2025 order culminates litigation that began eight years earlier. In 2017, concerns were raised about the AIFF's opaque functioning, particularly its election process, terms of office-bearers, and lack of player representation.

Over time, the litigation became emblematic of deeper structural flaws in Indian sports governance—such as concentration of power in a few individuals, inadequate checks on financial management, and the absence of mechanisms for athlete participation in decision-making.

By finalising a constitution consistent with the National Sports Governance Act, the Supreme Court has brought an end to the uncertainty that has plagued Indian football’s administration for nearly a decade.

Why the National Sports Governance Act Matters

The National Sports Governance Act, passed earlier this year, is the most significant legislative intervention in Indian sport since independence. It lays down uniform standards for governance across all national sports federations, addressing issues such as:

• Tenure and Age Caps: Office bearers cannot exceed defined terms or age limits, ensuring rotation and preventing dynastic control.

• Athlete Representation: At least 25% of the governing body must comprise players, both current and former.

• Financial Accountability: Federations must adopt transparent accounting practices subject to annual audits.

• Electoral Integrity: Elections must be overseen by independent committees under strict norms.

By tying the AIFF constitution to this statute, the Court has reinforced Parliament’s intent to transform sports administration into a more accountable, legally regulated domain.

Key Features of the New AIFF Constitution

The Court-endorsed draft AIFF constitution introduces sweeping reforms:

• Player-Centric Governance: For the first time, footballers will have a defined role in federation governance. Their representation in committees ensures decisions reflect on-field realities.

• Democratic Elections: Office bearers must be elected under transparent norms, with strict disqualification criteria to prevent conflicts of interest.

• Term and Age Restrictions: No individual may serve as AIFF President for more than two terms, and age caps are imposed to encourage generational change.

• Financial Oversight: All contracts, sponsorship deals, and expenditures must be subject to disclosure and oversight by an independent auditor.

The emphasis is on shifting AIFF from a closed network of administrators to a participatory, transparent federation aligned with best practices in global sports governance.

Constitutional Ideals in Sports Administration

A striking feature of the Court’s remarks was its invocation of fraternity—one of the core values enshrined in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. By embedding this principle in the governance of sport, the Court underscored the idea that sports federations are not merely private associations but institutions that serve a public function.

This builds upon past jurisprudence where the Supreme Court has treated sports bodies as amenable to public law standards due to their impact on national representation and the rights of athletes. The AIFF case extends that principle into a codified governance framework, marrying constitutional ideals with sectoral reform.

Implications for Indian Football

For Indian football, the immediate impact is significant:

• Credibility Boost: FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation have long expressed concerns about AIFF governance. Adoption of the new constitution is likely to restore confidence internationally.

• Improved Development Pathways: With players now part of decision-making, grassroots programmes and player welfare are expected to receive stronger institutional backing.

• Reduced Political Interference: The age and tenure caps will diminish the influence of entrenched political figures who have historically dominated AIFF leadership.

The reforms also promise better financial stewardship, which is critical for attracting sponsors, investors, and international partnerships.

Ripple Effects Across Indian Sport

Although the case centred on football, its impact extends well beyond. By linking AIFF’s constitution to the National Sports Governance Act, the Court has set a precedent for other federations. Cricket, hockey, athletics, and other sports bodies will now be expected to bring their constitutions in line with the new law.

The order also sends a clear signal: the judiciary will no longer tolerate opaque, personality-driven governance in national sports bodies. Instead, compliance with statutory standards will be judicially enforced, closing the gap between law and practice.

Challenges in Implementation

Despite the promise, challenges remain. Resistance from entrenched administrators cannot be ruled out, especially in federations where political influence runs deep. Questions also remain about how effectively independent election committees can operate in practice, given the pressures of factional politics.

Moreover, meaningful reform requires cultural change, not just legal mandates. Player representatives will need training and institutional support to exercise their roles effectively, ensuring that representation translates into influence.

Finally, financial transparency depends on rigorous auditing and enforcement, areas where Indian sports governance has historically been weak.

Lessons from Past Interventions

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has intervened in sports governance. The Lodha Committee reforms in cricket, endorsed by the Court in 2016, sought to impose similar age and tenure limits in the BCCI. While partially implemented, those reforms faced significant resistance and dilution over time.

The AIFF case offers a more favourable starting point, thanks to the statutory backing of the National Sports Governance Act. Unlike the BCCI reforms, which relied solely on judicial fiat, the AIFF constitution now has the dual legitimacy of both Parliament and the Supreme Court.

This convergence of legislative and judicial authority enhances the chances of durable reform.

Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Sports Law in India

The Supreme Court’s finalisation of the AIFF constitution represents a milestone in Indian sports law. It concludes a litigation that spanned nearly a decade, aligns football administration with the new National Sports Governance Act, and sets a template for reform across all sports federations.

By emphasising transparency, accountability, and fraternity, the Court has reframed sports governance as a constitutional question rather than a private concern of federations. The challenge now lies in translating this framework into practice—ensuring that reforms deliver real benefits to athletes, fans, and the broader sporting ecosystem.

As the Court noted with guarded optimism: “We hope this makes a real difference to Indian football.” If faithfully implemented, the AIFF constitution could be the turning point that propels Indian sport towards a more democratic and accountable future.