Sports activist and lawyer Rahul Mehra on Saturday described the Supreme Court’s approval of a new constitution for the All India Football Federation (AIFF) as the “most satisfying day” of his career, the culmination of a legal battle he began more than a decade ago that lays the groundwork for how sports bodies will be governed in India in the coming days.
After the verdict, Mehra said that the judgment has laid the foundation for a new era in Indian sports governance.
“This single-handedly changes the way Indian sports is governed today,” Mehra said, outlining the key reforms mandated by the court in the case AIFF vs Rahul Mehra, which he had filed before the Delhi high court in 2014.
On Friday, the Supreme Court bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi approved the draft constitution prepared by Justice Rao with modifications and directed the AIFF to call a special general body meeting within four weeks to adopt it.
Calling it a “new beginning for Indian football,” the court said the changes would take the sport to “greater heights.”
The 78-page verdict held that the new constitution would apply not only to the AIFF but also to state and district units despite their opposition.
“They must therefore implement the same level of discipline, fairness, transparency, and good governance quotients applied at the very top,” the bench said.
Among the most significant directions, the Supreme Court has held that all executive committee members of the AIFF will be treated as office bearers, not just the president, secretary and treasurer.
They will face strict tenure restrictions, with a maximum of 12 years in office or three terms of four years each, and a mandatory four-year cooling-off period after the second term or eight years in office.
The court has also capped the maximum age at 70, with some exceptions up to 75.
Mehra said the disqualification criteria laid down by the court would change the complexion of sports administration.
Any office bearer convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more will stand disqualified.
Those holding ministerial office or government service positions will also be barred, while indirect interest will count as a conflict of interest resulting in removal.
The judgment mandates that at least 25 per cent of the AIFF’s general body must comprise sportspersons of outstanding merit with voting rights, which in effect will be closer to 38 per cent, including at least five women.
At the executive committee level, a third of the 15 members will have to be eminent athletes, with at least two women, to be chosen through elections in the Athletes Commission.
“The principle of promotion and relegation in Indian football has been upheld, AIFF will no longer be allowed to hand over league rights on a platter to private entities, and the reforms earlier applied to BCCI have now been extended to all national sports federations including AIFF,” Mehra said.
He added that no amendment to the AIFF constitution in future will be valid without the leave of the Supreme Court.
He urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi and sports minister Mansukh Mandaviya to ensure that the upcoming Sports Act 2025 does not contradict the judgment.
The judgment redefined the eligibility criteria for eminent players in the executive committee.
A male player must have represented India in at least five senior FIFA or AFC-sanctioned matches and a female player in at least two such matches, provided they have retired for two years. This relaxation, the court said, would ensure a wider pool of eligible candidates.
The bench accepted AIFF’s proposal to increase the number of vice presidents to three, including one woman, while limiting the executive committee strength to 15.
The court made it clear that it would no longer engage in continuous monitoring of the AIFF. “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 tenure of the current executive committee led by president Kalyan Chaubey, elected in 2022, will not be disturbed and will continue until September 2026.
“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,” the bench said.
India, which is currently ranked 134 in the FIFA men’s world rankings, has long grappled with structural deficiencies in football administration.
The Supreme Court’s verdict seeks to address these gaps through transparency and stronger athlete representation.
The judgment also arrives at a time when questions are increasingly being asked about the role of politics in Indian sports.
Last year, a record 257-member Indian contingent, including 117 athletes and 140 support staff, was sent to the Paris Olympics.
This was larger than the 228-member delegation at the pandemic-delayed Tokyo Games in 2021, which had 121 athletes and 107 officials. The steady increase of support staff alongside athletes reflects how sports administration has often been mediated by political influence, appointments, and federations dominated by individuals with little accountability.
The Supreme Court’s decision, combining the recommendations of Justice Rao with reforms introduced in earlier sports governance cases, has set out an unprecedented framework for transparency, accountability and athlete representation.
As the AIFF prepares to adopt its new constitution, the coming weeks will mark the first test of whether Indian football can indeed embrace the reforms described by the court as a “new dawn.”
“My unadulterated passion for Indian sports, love for Indian sportspersons and perseverance to usher in an era of well-meaning reforms has truly paid off,” said Mehra.