The Supreme Court on Friday said it is not interested in controlling or monitoring the affairs of Indian football as it sought to know the views of former Supreme Court judge L Nageswara Rao on two contentious provisions in the draft constitution of the All India Football Federation (AIFF).

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar said it will have a word with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was part of the bench that dealt with the AIFF’s draft constitution on September 19 on a plea moved by the federation. The draft constitution of the AIFF was prepared by Justice Rao and approved by the apex court.

“We have already said that the Supreme Court is not interested in controlling or monitoring the affairs of football. We have already said that our judgment is only in the interregnum till the Act comes into play. These small things could have been easily taken care of. Anyway, we will seek the views of Justice Rao and issue a clarification,” the bench said.

Representing the AIFF in the matter, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra informed the bench that in compliance with the apex court’s order, the federation is scheduled to hold a special general body meeting on Sunday, where the draft constitution is to be adopted. He said the governing body of world football, FIFA, has certain objections to two clauses in the draft constitution and the AIFF is seeking a clarification from the bench in that regard.

Luthra submitted that according to the draft provision, if a person is nominated to the AIFF, he ceases to be a member of a state football association and if he ceases to be a member of a state association, then he cannot be a member of the national body.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who has been appointed as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the matter, said every clause has been made clear in the judgment and the AIFF should not have sought the clarification. He said the clarification is being sought by the members of the AIFF’s current executive body, who have been allowed to continue on their posts till next year and are actually affected as they want to maintain their control over the state associations.

“The only problem is that Justice Rao himself sought the deletion of these provisions but the apex court approved those in its verdict and now again, we have to seek his views,” Sankaranarayanan pointed out.

Referring to the constitution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), senior advocate Rahul Mehra, who was the petitioner before the high court, submitted that it does not make any difference as if a person is nominated to the national body, then he automatically ceases to be a member of a state association.

The bench said the intention of the court’s intervention in the matter was that the affairs of the football federation could be run in a well-established manner. “We have come this far and now, we do not want that there should be any confusion. We will have a word with Justice Rao and ask him to submit a report. You inform the special general body that the Supreme Court has agreed to give the clarification,” the bench told Luthra.

Also read: ISL in doubt, 11 clubs ask AIFF to approach SC