Read Time: 09 minutes
The petitioners alleged that the order failed to provide any comprehensive rationale for this decision, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. They also asserted that a reasoned order is necessary to ensure fairness, and transparency as well as offer them an opportunity to better understand the grounds on which they are being penalized.
The Delhi High Court recently set aside an order of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) imposing a penalty of Rs. 12.9 crore on footballer Anwar Ali. Ali, a member of the Emami East Bengal Football Club (EBFC), was penalized for allegedly violating a tripartite player loan agreement.
The bench, comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that AIFF in its decision did not provide the rationale behind the penalty imposed on the footballer. This was violative of the principles of natural justice, according to the bench.
The controversy stems from a Player Loan Agreement from January 2023. The agreement was executed between Ali, the Delhi Football Club, and the Mohan Bagun Super Giants (MBSG). As per the terms of the agreement, Ali was loaned out by the Delhi FC to the MBSG for a period of two years. Subsequently, he was transferred to the EBFC.
However, he soon approached the All India Football Federation Players’ Status Committee, seeking reintegration into Delhi FC, along with the requisite compensation as per his original contract. He additionally sought a termination of the Player Loan Agreement, but the Committee refused.
The committee observed that the interested parties, Delhi FC, Ali, and the EBFC were guilty of inducement, consequently directing them to pay a compensation amounting to Rs. 12.9 crore to the MBSG. Additionally, sanctions were imposed on both Ali and the football clubs. While the footballer was directed not to participate in any matches for a period of four months, the Delhi FC and EBFC were banned from registering new players for two registration periods.
This decision led Ali, the Delhi FC, and EBFC to challenge the order passed by the Committee, which stated that a reasoned order would enable them to better respond to the accusations against and sanctions imposed on them. They additionally asserted that this is necessary to ensure fairness and transparency.
The court observed that the players had requested the grounds for the decision passed by AIFF, through emails dated 10th and 11th September 2024. However, their request was not heeded and they did not receive any information regarding this. The court noted that, as per the provisions of the AIFF Regulation on the Status and Transfer of Players, 2023, the players were entitled to file an appeal before the AIFF Appeals Committee.
However, according to the AIFF Disciplinary Code, an appeal is only permissible if the players have requested for the grounds on which sanctions have been imposed on them. Thus, the omission on the part of AIFF effectively undermined the petitioners’ right to appeal against the order, despite having requested the rationale in a timely manner. The court observed that this was preventing the players from preparing a comprehensive appeal to challenge the decision. This conduct of the committee was thus a violation of natural justice and due process.
In response to these allegations, Advocate Prateek K. Chadha, representing the AIFF, submitted before the court that the AIFF committee was drafting a detailed rationale behind imposing a penalty.
The court opined that such a practice adopted by the AIFF, which issued a decision without providing detailed reasons, is fundamentally violative of the principles of natural justice. Further observing that the right to a fair hearing encompasses not only the opportunity to be heard but also the right to know the reasons behind an adverse decision, the court suggested that the PSC provide the players and the contesting football clubs a fresh hearing.
However, Advocate Dayan Krishnan and Senior Counsel Jayant Mehta, representing the MBSG, informed that the AIFF PSC had issued interim orders in August 2024, prior to the contentious September order. The court noted that "as per the doctrine of merger, the interim orders stood merged with the impugned order. Accordingly, since the impugned order is being withdrawn and the matter has to be decided afresh, the interim orders cannot survive".
The court therefore directed AIFF to "conduct a fresh hearing, providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties on 14th September, 2024, and accordingly, render a decision thereon along with detailed reasons, in accordance with law".
Case Title: Anwar Ali v All India Football Federation (W.P.(C) 12915/2024)
Please Login or Register
