The Supreme Court on Friday said it is not interested in controlling or monitoring the affairs of Indian football as it sought to know the views of former apex court judge L Nageswara Rao on two contentious provisions in the draft constitution of the All India Football Federation (AIFF).

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar said it will have a word with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was part of the bench that dealt with the AIFF's draft constitution on September 19 on a plea moved by the federation.

The draft constitution of the AIFF was prepared by Justice Rao and approved by the apex court.

"We have already said that the Supreme Court is not interested in controlling or monitoring the affairs of football. We have already said that our judgment is only in the interregnum till the Act comes into play. These small things could have been easily taken care of. Anyway, we will seek the views of Justice Rao and issue a clarification," the bench said.

Representing the AIFF in the matter, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra informed the bench that in compliance with the apex court's order, the federation is scheduled to hold a special general body meeting on Sunday, where the draft constitution is to be adopted.

He said the governing body of world football, FIFA, has certain objections to two clauses in the draft constitution and the AIFF is seeking a clarification from the bench in that regard.

Luthra submitted that according to the draft provision, if a person is nominated to the AIFF, then he ceases to be a member of a state football association and if he ceases to be a member of a state association, then he cannot be a member of the national body.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who has been appointed as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the matter, said every clause has been made clear in the judgment and the AIFF should not have sought the clarification.

He said the clarification is being sought by the members of the AIFF's current executive body, who have been allowed to continue on their posts till next year and are actually affected as they want to maintain their control over the state associations.

"The only problem is that Justice Rao himself sought the deletion of these provisions but the apex court approved those in its verdict and now again, we have to seek his views," Sankaranarayanan pointed out.

Referring to the constitution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Senior advocate Rahul Mehra, who was the petitioner before the high court, submitted that it does not make any difference as if a person is nominated to the national body, then he automatically ceases to be a member of a state association.

The bench said the intention of the court's intervention in the matter was that the affairs of the football federation could be run in a well-established manner.

"We have come this far and now, we do not want that there should be any confusion. We will have a word with Justice Rao and ask him to submit a report. You inform the special general body that the Supreme Court has agreed to give the clarification," the bench told Luthra.

It added that all the parties should work together and sit with the representatives of the Centre to sort out the differences.

The AIFF moved the apex court on Thursday, seeking a clarification in view of the objections raised by the FIFA.

The federation's objections relate to a clause in the draft constitution that makes if mandatory to obtain the apex court's approval for any constitutional amendment and another prohibiting its members from holding posts in state bodies simultaneously.

The AIFF has claimed that these provisions are in contradiction with FIFA rules, which mandate member associations to operate independently, without any external interference.

On September 19, the top court approved the draft constitution of the AIFF with certain changes as it asked for its adoption by the federation within four weeks.

The court called it a "new beginning for Indian football", which is set take the "sport to greater heights".

It directed the national football body to convene a special general body meeting to adopt the draft constitution.

The 78-page verdict authored by Justice Narasimha dealt with 12 issues, such as membership, its suspension, age bar and conflict of interest pertaining to the AIFF and state football associations.

The court said the draft constitution will be applicable to the state associations as well despite their resistance.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.