We have seen spectators make a beeline for the exit gates when a team prefers to sit on a 1-0 lead, back-pedaling and doing everything else to retain possession and avoid a swift counter. Indeed, it is not the most entertaining phase of play in a football match, everyone waiting for the referee to consult the watch one last time and blow the long whistle to signal the end of a match.
Then again, the All India Football Federation election is not a 90-minute game. In fact, the watch seems to be not ticking at all. The moot question is: Who will get it moving? And, the more important question perhaps is: When will that decisive move happen? After all, everyone concerned is happy to cite that it is sub-judice and throw one’s hands up, seemingly in despair.
As far back as on November 10, 2017, Supreme Court gave Dr SY Quraishi and Bhaskar Ganguly the task of formulating the AIFF’s new Constitution in eight weeks. It took the two-man Committee of Administrators more than two years to complete that job and it was only in January this year that it submitted the amended AIFF Constitution to the Court in a sealed cover.
So, who can move the Supreme Court to expedite the case filed by AIFF?
There are three parties that come to mind. To begin with, to show that it is interested in complying with the National Sports Code 2011, the AIFF can itself request the Court to urgently consider the constitution as amended by the Court-appointed Committee of Administrators and allow the elections to be held in accordance with the Code.
Given that AIFF is reported to have sought the Supreme Court’s permission to extend the term of the present executive committee till the case is disposed off, it is unlikely that it will be in a hurry to request the Court to give the amended Constitution its approval. Come to think of it, the AIFF has even claimed that the CoA has not completed the task of rewriting the Constitution.
The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports could have sought clarification from the Supreme Court before deciding to extend its recognition of AIFF for a year. The Ministry has said the matter is still sub-judice in deciding to extend its annual recognition to AIFF. And in doing that, it has indicated its unwillingness to move Court.
If it was keen to be seen as enforcing the National Sports Code uniformly, the Ministry could have sought directions from the Court if AIFF elections could be held as per the new constitution drafted by the CoA. Yet again, it has shown that it would not ruffle feathers of a Federation that is headed by a strong personality.
That leaves Rahul Mehra as the one major party who can move the Supreme Court for an early hearing and resolution. It was on his application that the Delhi High Court set aside the election held on December 24, 2016. He can now request the Court to expedite the process of giving its stamp of approval to the amended Constitution of the AIFF so that the elections can be held.
It should not have been difficult for the Ministry to ask for fresh elections since the term of the executive council is drawing to a close next month. For, a reading of orders of the Courts will indicate that the AIFF is currently governed by a constitution. Until a new set of statutes is in place, the old one will continue to guide the manner in which AIFF must be run.
Ideally of course, Mr. Praful Patel should be setting an example by stepping down upon completion of three terms. But that seems wishful thinking, especially after the AIFF has sought the Court’s permission to let the executive committee elected in 2016 to continue until fresh elections can be held.
After all, the Supreme Court kept in abeyance the Delhi High Court order setting aside the AIFF election. It did not leave AIFF without a constitution. It is hard to understand why that cannot be respected as long as it continues to be held in good standing, legally.
