NEW DELHI: Praful Patel has no mandate to continue as All India Football Federation (AIFF) president as he has already served three terms and the national body should hold elections without further delay.
That is a fact that even the AIFF has accepted. Patel completed his three terms and 12 years as AIFF president in December, 2020, the maximum permitted to a national sports federation (NSF) chief under the (happily flouted by all and sundry) National Sports Code. The fact is also that the AIFF has not held elections, citing a pending petition in the Supreme Court regarding its constitution.
The AIFF had moved an application in the Supreme Court only a month before its elections were due, seeking certain clarifications on the status of its constitution, which was under scrutiny in the apex court since 2017. The case is still pending.
It is that case which has come up for hearing in the Apex Court. And in relation to said Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the AIFF, the Union Sports Ministry, in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on April 8, also corroborated the obvious. That Patel’s tenure was in violation of the Sports Code. “…The term of existing committee (of AIFF) is already over, and the existing president (Praful Patel) has completed more than 12 years as president, the petitioner (AIFF) should hold elections without further delay as per extant instructions contained under Sports Code and the instructions issued by the Answering Respondent (Sports Ministry) from time to time,” the ministry’s affidavit said.
“That thus the tenure of an office bearer of the petitioner, such as the president, who has already served 12 years as president of AIFF, will be in violation of the Sports Code, specifically clause 9.3 (iii) of the Sports Code read with the notification dated 01.05.2010.”
There is something new in the affidavit filed by the Sports Minsitry though. The ministry has hinted that the AIFF could lose its government recognition for not adhering to the Sports Code. “As the last elections held by the petitioner was on 21.12.2016, as such the petitioner is required to conduct fresh elections. While recently the Answering Respondent (Sports Ministry) renewed the petitioner’s (AIFF) annual recognition for a year with effect from 23.10.2020, such recognition is subject to the outcome of the special leave petition pending before this honourable court. Furthermore, the Answering Respondent (Sports Ministry) in their renewal letter dated 23.10.2020 has categorically stated that the petitioner (AIFF) needs to bring their constitution in line with provisions of the Sports Code within six months from the date of issue of the letter,” the ministry stated in the affidavit.
While the AIFF’s response in the Apex Court will presumably be made at some point (no point in speculating as to when that might be), which is what really matters, the AIFF was “quick on the draw” on social media, tweeting on its official Twitter account on Monday: “As per the constitution of FIFA and AFC, it is mandatory to have an elected body representing the affairs of AIFF. Since our application is still pending with the Supreme Court, seeking directions regrading holding the elections, we are constrained to hold office in the absence of a new body. Otherwise AIFF will lose its affiliation with FIFA and AFC and will not be able to either participate or hold any international competition in India including the FIFA U-17 World Cup.
“We would be more than happy to hold the elections tomorrow if the Supreme Court approves our constitution. Already our constitution is in conformity with the National Sports Code adhering the age limit of 70 years and three tenures totalling 12 years.”
In 2017, the Delhi High Court had set aside the election of Patel as AIFF president (in the 2016 AGM) on a petition by senior advocate Rahul Mehra. But the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court decision, allowing Patel to continue in his role, while also appointing former Chief Election Commissioner of India SY Quraishi and former national captain Bhaskar Ganguly as administrators and to formulate the AIFF constitution.
While Patel has been consistent in stating that he will not contest in any election of the AIFF, what the national body has also been consistent on is about doing nothing to activate the process of holding elections. In February, at the AIFF AGM in Mumbai, matters came to a head and Patel finally agreed to constitute a committee to look into the matter. The three-member committee was asked to submit their report in three months. If the precedent set by Quraishi and Ganguly is anything to go by, scepticism is the prevailing sentiment as far as the report being submitted on schedule is concerned.
And while the case meanders through the Supreme Court, Patel remains firmly in the saddle.
