ZURICH: FIFA has written to the All India Football Federation (AIFF) seeking more information about the recent Delhi High Court decision that set aside the December 2016 election of AIFF president Praful Patel for failing to follow the National Sports Code.
FIFA has also reminded the AIFF that… “member associations, including the AIFF, are obliged to manage their affairs independently and without undue influence from third parties”, Reuters quotes football’s world governing body as having stated.
The Delhi High Court had on Tuesday annulled AIFF’s 2016 election in which Patel was re-elected president unopposed for a third successive term, and ordered a re-run to be organised by the country’s former election commission chief SY Quraishi within five months.
Meanwhile, AIFF has been maintaining that it was fully compliant with both Sports Ministry as well as FIFA statutes.
AIFF’s assertion, however, does not square with the Delhi High Court’s findings on the matter though.
The Delhi High Court Division Bench of Justice Nazmi Wajiri and Justice Ravindra Bhatt observed the AIFF made a false claim while saying that a prospective presidential candidate is necessarily required to have five proposers from among members as per FIFA rules.
The Bench has made some strong observation in its detailed judgment released Friday, Calcutta Telegraph reports.
Telegraph, which accessed the judgment, notes that the court, quoting the FIFA rule book, had observed: “Evidently, the said provision is apropos elections to the international body and not for the national football association of a member association.
“There is nothing on record to show that the same method of voting is essential for the member associations of Fifa and the said clause is either mandatory or applicable to the applicant,” the court order further said.
Additionally, the court pointed out that not enough time was given to the electorate when the elections were held in December 2016. While the members were informed on November 17 about the December 21 elections, the name of the returning officer was made available only on November 25.
However, his landline telephone number was intimated through email on November 30, making it impossible for the members to contact the returning officer before that day.
“Furthermore, the name of delegates who would cast votes had been changed and the electoral college in terms of the letter dated 13.12.2016 was significantly different from that when the elections took place,” the order reads.
