Delhi HC Directs AIFF to Conduct Fresh Hearings in Anwar Ali Transfer Case

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has directed the Players’ Status Committee (PSC) of the All-India Football Federation (AIFF) to grant Anwar Ali, Delhi FC and Emami East Bengal FC a fresh opportunity to be heard. Further, the order passed earlier imposing a penalty of 12.9 Cr and a four-month suspension was to be withdrawn, and a fresh detailed order was to be passed after hearing the matter afresh.

The Court observed that the practice of issuing a decision without providing detailed reasons was fundamentally violative of the principles of natural justice. 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 matter had ensued from a tripartite loan agreement through which Delhi Football Club had loaned out player Anwar Ali to Mohun Bagan Supers Giants (MBSG), however, a year later, Anwar Ali terminated the agreement and returned to Delhi FC. He was then transferred to Emami East Bengal FC. On petition to the AIFF PSC to enable his reintegration with Delhi FC and recognition of the termination, the committee found the parties guilty of inducement and concluded that MBSG was entitled to compensation. The committee also imposed sanctions in the form of suspension for the player, and EBFC and Delhi FC were banned from registering new players for two registration periods.

The committee’s procedures of providing decisions without detailed grounds and the provision for requesting the grounds within ten calendar days under Article 14.5 were found to be violative of the principles of natural justice. Further, under Article 34.1 of the AIFF Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 2023, an appeal may be filed before the AIFF Appeals Committee. However, 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. In the instant case, a request for grounds was made, but they were not shared, which deprived the petitioners of their right to appeal.