The Supreme Court will on January 4 hear an appeal from former India goalkeeper Kalyan Chaubey, who has sought elections in the All India Football Federation (AIFF), a source confirmed to IANS on Saturday.
Chaubey, who played for the senior national team from 1999-2006, had moved the apex court earlier this month with an appeal to not extend the mandate of the current executive committee of the AIFF and hold fresh elections at an early date.
He has also pleaded in the top court to correct the election eligibility process so that former players can also contest the elections and be part of AIFF’s decision making.
Speaking to IANS, Chaubey had earlier said, “I have simply demanded two things. One, according to the National Sports Code, the way AIFF is being run currently is not as per to the rules. AIFF should follow the Supreme Court judgment in this regard, i.e., hold proper elections to run the committee.
“Secondly, the AIFF has put a very strange condition that if anybody wants to contest the federation’s elections, he or she has to hold a position in a state association for at least four years.”
“What I have asked is that if a former footballer wants to contest the elections, he should be given a chance even if he doesn’t fulfil the above criterion. This is because it is football for whose benefit this committee is there, and a former footballer can be a part of it,” said Chaubey, a winner of three SAFF Championships.
Recently, the AIFF had also moved an application in the Supreme Court to extend the tenure of the current executive committee beyond December 21, claiming that the court-appointed administrators are yet to frame a new constitution to conduct elections.
The AIFF in its petition has asked the top court to “allow the Executive Committee elected on December 21, 2016 in its annual general body meeting to continue to hold office till a new executive committee is formed pursuant to an election conducted in accordance with the new constitution and may be approved by the court and /or pass such order/orders as the court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the present case”.