CHENNAI: On Tuesday, the Delhi High court set aside the election of Praful Patel as the president of the AIFF, ruling that they had violated the national sports code. A bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and Najmi Waziri also appointed former chief election commissioner SY Quraishi as interim administrator, with the body given five months to conduct fresh elections. The decision came after a plea by eminent sports lawyer Rahul Mehra, a man who has rattled sports bodies across the country, from the BCCI to the Indian Olympic Association. Express asked him a few questions about the verdict...
The Delhi HC has set aside the election because they did not adhere to the sports code. Could you clarify how this was the case?
There is a clause regarding the number of proposers and seconders required during the election. This clause, also many others, is at variance with the sports code. The constitution itself had a restrictive clause, wherein only for the post of president and secretary, there were pre-conditions which were not there for other posts. As such, they had restricted the entry of the general house to contest for the posts of president and secretary. There was a mail sent out by a senior official of AIFF, asking associations to unanimously appoint a pre-decided list of officials, making the elections a farce. There were also various other issue/violations that I had raised, which have found favour with the honourable court.
If the AIFF appeals this decision in Supreme Court, will the appointment of an administrator be stayed until the SC pronounces a decision?
They have the right to appeal in Supreme Court. However, the administrator shall immediately take over the affairs of the management of football in India, unless the said judgement is stayed by the Supreme Court.
Will the administrator have complete control over the running of the AIFF?
My understanding is that he has absolute control over the running of the AIFF.
The administrator will have to conduct fresh elections in five months. Can Patel contest again? He had one year as a caretaker in 2008. Does that count as a term?
For the post of president, you can actually have three terms of four years each. As per my understanding, it (the caretaker stint) should count. I don’t know how the government will interpret it. Whether Patel is eligible to stand depends on the stand taken by the government and subsequent verdict of the court, if so challenged. If his three terms are over, then he can’t stand for the elections. Otherwise he can.
FIFA suspended Pakistan for having a court-appointed administrator. Does India stand the same risk?
I don’t think so. If it happens, it’s going to be good for Indian football as there will be a cleansing of administration. In any case, Indian courts are not concerned with FIFA rules, but has to look into the compliance of the government sports code, as it has been held to be legal, binding and mandatory on all national sports federations.
When IOC suspended IOA, I had got them de-recognised. That process lasted only about a year. IOA was forced to adopt various provisions of the sports code and the same was ratified by the IOC, pursuant to which the IOA was granted recognition once again by the IOC and the central government. The very fact that FIFA conducted the U-17 World Cup in India, was not for the love of Indian football, but because FIFA eyes the revenue it can earn from the Indian market. India stands on a different footing than Pakistan and can’t be ignored by FIFA for long. Even if they do, it will be a very temporary measure.