Supreme Court’s football order outlines broad vision of India
The ruling, delivered by a bench of justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, went beyond technical questions of football governance
On September 19, the Supreme Court not only gave Indian football a new lease of life but also set a wider jurisprudential marker on the role of sports in nation-building. For perhaps the first time, the top court placed sports within the framework of India’s Constitution -- as material resources of the community, as institutions of national life, and as vital arenas for nurturing fraternity.
The ruling, delivered by a bench of justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, went beyond technical questions of football governance to emphasise that sports are not mere pastimes but instruments of unity, equity and dignity.
By finalising the constitution of the All India Football Federation (AIFF), the court hoped to end decades of ad-hocism, inefficiency and politicisation that had hobbled Indian football. But its larger contribution may well be in the vision it articulates: that sports, when democratised and managed with integrity, can be one of the strongest forces binding together a diverse nation.
Sports as a constitutional value
In a powerful opening to its 78-page judgment authored by Justice Narasimha, the court located the importance of sports in constitutional morality. It held that sporting facilities and opportunities must be understood as “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b), while their organisers qualify as “institutions of national life” under Article 38. Seen this way, sports are not luxuries for the urban elite but resources that must be made accessible to all citizens, it noted.
The court went further, invoking Article 15(2), which prohibits exclusion from places of public resort. Sports, it said, must remain inclusive, both in participation and administration. “Fraternity,” the bench wrote, is not enforceable by law but must be “nurtured through lived experiences of unity, trust, and shared endeavour.”
“National, international, regional or even mohalla sports in India serve as the Karmabhumi where cohesion and collective purpose take tangible form. They bring together individuals from diverse social, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds under a common pursuit, embodying the Constitutional value of fraternity. Here, individual and collective aspirations find a way to coalesce,” held the bench.
This recognition is significant. While India’s courts have historically spoken about the right to education, health or livelihood, few judgments have conceptualised sports as part of the constitutional promise of fraternity. By doing so, the court has provided a moral vocabulary for policies that expand grassroots access to sport and make its governance more transparent.
The AIFF Constitution
The immediate context of the ruling was the long-running litigation around the governance of AIFF, which led to FIFA’s threat of suspension of Indian football. The court had earlier placed the federation under a Committee of Administrators (CoA), before inviting inputs from stakeholders and finalising a new constitution.
The new AIFF constitution, as approved by the court, borrowed heavily from the reforms earlier mandated in cricket’s BCCI. Key provisions included age and tenure caps under which office bearers cannot be above 70 years of age, ministers and government servants are barred from holding office, while conviction with a sentence of more than two years would disqualify a candidate, in line with standards for MPs and MLAs. Fifteen eminent players, including at least five women, will have voting rights in the general body, alongside representatives of clubs, referees and coaches. Given India’s limited pool of footballers meeting earlier benchmarks, the court reduced the eligibility criteria for eminent players to having represented India in at least five matches for men and two for women. The judgment also imposed checks on amendments, ruling that any amendment to the AIFF constitution requires prior approval of the Supreme Court, to prevent dilution by vested interests.
By ensuring that players, referees and coaches have a voice in governance, the apex court struck at the monopoly long enjoyed by state associations and political appointees. It rejected the argument that granting voting rights to players violates FIFA statutes, pointing out that international practice increasingly favours their inclusion.
For a sport long struggling with corruption and neglect, these structural reforms signal a break from the past. The AIFF now has until October 14 to adopt the constitution in its special general body meeting, which would avert FIFA’s suspension threat.
Football and fraternity
More than the nuts and bolts of governance, what stands out in the judgment is its repeated emphasis on fraternity. Sports, the court underscored, bring together people from different castes, classes, religions, and languages, dissolving distinctions in pursuit of a shared goal.
“On the field, teamwork compels individuals to set aside personal distinctions and work together, cultivating habits of cooperation, solidarity, and mutual respect. Accessibility of sports is important, for when opportunities to participate are open to all -- irrespective of race, caste, religion, sex, or economic status, the unifying power of sport is amplified,” said the judgment.
This inclusiveness, it added, ensures that sports become not a privilege of the few but a medium through which fraternity is strengthened across society. “In this way, sports operationalise what the framers envisioned: an intangible yet indispensable force that holds us together through shared effort and common purpose,” the court held.
This framing is not accidental. Football, with its deep reach in states such as West Bengal, Kerala, Goa and the Northeast, is uniquely positioned to embody the idea of unity in diversity. Unlike cricket, which is often seen as dominated by urban and commercial interests, football has remained a people’s sport in many parts of India.
Asserting that sports must not remain the privilege of the few, the court implicitly called for redistribution of resources generated from media rights and sponsorships so that these revenues can be channelled into grassroots training, infrastructure in smaller towns and inclusivity programmes for sports to become a real vehicle for social mobility. The reference to Article 38(2), which mandates the State to reduce inequalities, situates sports policy firmly within India’s constitutional mandate.
Lessons from cricket, hope for football
The judgment drew parallels with the BCCI reforms of 2018, which had introduced age limits, tenure caps and conflict-of-interest norms in Indian cricket. While acknowledging that AIFF, unlike BCCI, is a National Sports Federation (NSF), the bench stressed that principles of transparency and accountability are common to both.
It dismissed arguments that football’s governance could not be compared with cricket’s, noting that the ultimate goal is the same -- to instill professionalism and fairness in sports administration. Importantly, it extended the AIFF constitution’s applicability to state associations as well, to prevent loopholes that allow entrenched officials to rotate between bodies and evade term limits.
As of April 2025, the India’s men’s football team ranks 127th in the world, lamented the court, citing a sobering figure for a country of over a billion people with a long footballing tradition. The court insisted on promotion and relegation in domestic leagues, and on wider participation by retired players, seeking to create a more competitive ecosystem that can push Indian football beyond its current stagnation.
The judgment ended on a note of optimism. “Our country is brimming with promising sporting talent which seeks suitable avenues and organisational support. We need to channelise this talent efficiently -- from village fields to international platforms.”
In many ways, the ruling is as much about Indian football as it is about India itself. It recognises that sports can foster fraternity -- an intangible but indispensable constitutional value, by giving people a chance to come together, compete fairly and dream collectively.
Whether these reforms will succeed depends not just on AIFF’s compliance but on how state associations, clubs and governments embrace the new vision. The Supreme Court has done its part by laying down the legal architecture and granting the sport a constitutional grounding, based on fraternity, inclusivity and fairness. The task now is to translate it into lived change.
