Delhi High Court: In a batch of writ petitions to challenge the order dated 10-09-2024 passed by the Players’ Status Committee (‘PSC’) of the All India Football Federation (‘AIFF’) for failing to provide detailed reasons for the imposition of sanctions which was contended to be a violation of the principles of natural justice, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J. declared the impugned order dated 10-09-2024 unenforceable and directed AIFF to conduct a fresh hearing on 14-09-2024 and render a decision with detailed reasons.
Background
In the present matter, a Player Loan Agreement (‘PLA’) dated 12-01-2023 was executed between Anwar Ali, Delhi Football Club (‘DFC’), and Mohun Bagan Super Giants (‘MBSG’) whereby DFC had loaned out Anwar Ali to MBSG for a term of four years. Anwar Ali terminated the said agreement on 08-07-2024 and returned to DFC, the parent club. Subsequently, Anwar Ali was transferred to Emami East Bengal FC (‘Emami EBFC’) under an agreement dated 10-07-2024.
Anwar Ali sought relief from the Players’ Status Committee (‘PSC’) of the All India Football Federation (‘AIFF’) in the form of reintegration with DFC and compensation as per his original contract. He also requested PSC to recognize the termination of the PLA dated 12-01-2023.
However, by way of the impugned order, PSC found the interested parties guilty of inducement and concluded that MBSG was entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 12.9 Crores. This amount was directed to be paid jointly and severally by Anwar Ali, Emami EBFC, and DFC. Further, the PSC restricted Anwar Ali from participating in any matches for four months and Emami FC as well as DFC were banned from registering new players for two registration periods.
Challenging the afore-mentioned order, the petitioners asserted that a reasoned order is essential to ensure fairness, transparency, and an opportunity for the parties to understand the grounds on which the decision was based, allowing them to effectively respond to the findings and sanctions imposed.
Analysis and Decision
The Court perused Article 14.5 of the Rules governing the Procedure of the AIFF PSC 2021 and found it evident that the PSC was allowed to communicate only the findings of a decision without providing detailed grounds to the parties involved.
The Court observed that the petitioners duly requested the grounds for the decision through emails dated 10-09-2024 and 11-09-2024 despite which the grounds had not been provided to them and this non-compliance had a direct bearing on the petitioners’ ability to exercise their right to appeal.
The court said that under Article 34.1 of the AIFF Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 2023, the petitioners were entitled to file an appeal before the AIFF Appeals Committee. It was also said that Article 117.2 of the AIFF Disciplinary Code stipulates that an appeal is permissible only if the appellant has specifically requested the grounds of the decision from the AIFF PSC.
The Court stated that the absence of grounds restricts the petitioners from preparing a comprehensive appeal and prevents them from challenging the decision appropriately, thereby violating principles of natural justice and due process. It was said that AIFF’s inaction had caused prejudice to the petitioners as it denied them an effective remedy to contest the sanctions imposed upon them.
The Court opined that the practice adopted by the AIFF PSC of issuing a decision without providing detailed reasons was fundamentally violative of the principles of natural justice. It was also said that the right to a fair hearing encompasses not only the opportunity to be heard but also the right to know the reasons for any adverse decision.
The Court suggested to AIFF that the PSC should provide the petitioners with a fresh opportunity to be heard to which AIFF replied that the AIFF Status Clearance Committee would withdraw the impugned order, and pass a fresh detailed order after hearing the parties afresh on 14-09-2024.
MBSG apprised the Court of the interim orders dated 03-08-2024 and 10-08-2024 issued by the AIFF PSC before the impugned order. To this, the Court opined that as per the doctrine of merger, the interim orders stood merged with the impugned order which was being withdrawn, and hence, the interim orders could not survive.
The Court, while disposing of the petition, held that the order dated 10-09-2024 stood withdrawn and declared the impugned order to be unenforceable. The Court directed AIFF to conduct a fresh hearing on 14-09-2024 and to accordingly render a decision along with detailed reasons.
It was further directed that if the proceedings before the AIFF PSC are not concluded on 14-09-2024, the PSC would be free to consider the request of the parties regarding interim arrangement/orders during the pendency of the proceedings.
[Anwar Ali v. All India Football Federation, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6489, Decided on 13-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners — Advocate Sarim Naved, Advocate Harsh Kumar
For Respondents — Advocate Prateek K. Chadha, Advocate Sreekumar Aechuri, Sr. Advocate Aditya Sondhi, Advocate Shivam Singh, Advocate Ishwar Singh, Advocate Abhinav Singh, Advocate Shubham Janghu, Advocate Yoshit Jain, Advocate Anubhav Kumar, Advocate Rajiv Nayar, Advocate Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate Jayant Mehta, Advocate Vanita Bhargava, Advocate Ajay Bhargava, Advocate Shlok Chandra, Advocate Vidushpath Singhania, Advocate Milind Jain, Advocate Phalguni Nigam, Advocate Aashita Khanna, Advocate Neil Goswami, Advocate Kushagra Jain, Advocate Sankalp Sharma
