Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: AIFF Constitution Finalised, SARFAESI Redemption Rights Clarified, and Anand Marriage Act Rules Mandated

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India delivered a series of significant judgments in the week spanning September 15-23, 2025, with far-reaching implications across constitutional, civil, criminal, and tax law. Key rulings included the finalisation of the All India Football Federation's (AIFF) constitution, a landmark decision clarifying the borrower's right of redemption under the amended SARFAESI Act, and stringent directives for the implementation of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909.

The Court also pronounced on the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and delivered crucial interpretations on tax liability, arbitral award execution, and procedural safeguards in criminal law. This weekly digest provides a comprehensive analysis of these pivotal decisions for the legal community.

---

Constitutional and Administrative Law Highlights

AIFF Constitution: Supreme Court Sets New Governance Standards

In a landmark verdict poised to reshape Indian football governance, the Supreme Court finalised the constitution for the All India Football Federation (AIFF) . The judgment in All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra addressed several contentious issues, establishing a framework based on good governance and transparency.

• Disqualification Criteria Modified: The Court diluted the stringent provision that disqualified individuals merely upon the framing of criminal charges. It held that only a conviction with a sentence of two years or more would lead to disqualification. Further, the disqualification for public servants was narrowed to apply only to Ministers and Government servants.
• Eminent Player Representation: Upholding the inclusion of players in governance, the Court mandated that 15 Eminent Players (with a minimum of 5 women) shall be voting members in the AIFF's General Body. The Court relied on the National Sports Code 2011, FIFA Statutes, and global best practices to affirm that prominent sportspersons can have voting rights. Eligibility for this category was also eased, reducing the required international appearances from 7 to 5 for men and 3 to 2 for women.
• Financial and Commercial Accountability: Setting crucial boundaries for private partnerships, the Court ruled that any commercial arrangement exceeding four years in duration or a value of five crores requires a 75% majority approval from the General Body. This ensures the AIFF retains "ultimate accountability," particularly concerning its Master Rights Agreement (MRA).
• Adoption and Implementation: The AIFF has been directed to convene a special general body meeting within four weeks to formally adopt the finalised constitution, heralding what the Court termed "a new beginning for Indian Football."

Anand Marriage Act: Court Mandates Implementation After Decades of Inaction

Expressing deep concern over the non-implementation of a 116-year-old law, the Supreme Court in Amanjot Singh Chadha v. Union of India directed 17 states and 7 Union Territories to frame and notify rules for the registration of Sikh marriages under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 , within four months.

The bench observed that the failure to provide a registration mechanism for Anand Karaj marriages created unequal treatment for Sikh citizens and violated constitutional principles. The Court powerfully remarked, "When the law recognises Anand Karaj as a valid form of marriage yet leaves no machinery to register it, the promise is only half kept." Interim directions were issued to ensure that, until rules are notified, Anand Karaj marriages are registered under existing frameworks without discrimination, with the certificate explicitly noting the rite of solemnisation.

Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: Constitutional Validity Largely Upheld

The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 , finding no manifest arbitrariness to warrant a stay on its major provisions. It held that the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Boards did not violate religious freedoms, as their functions are secular and advisory. The judgment also upheld the deletion of the "waqf by user" concept, noting that it was a legislative measure to prevent encroachment on government properties. However, the Court stayed the provision requiring a person to demonstrate the practice of Islam for five years to create a waqf, citing the potential for "arbitrary exercise of power" without a proper mechanism to determine this.

---

Banking and Finance: SARFAESI Act's Right of Redemption Redefined

In a crucial judgment clarifying the interplay between the SARFAESI Act and a borrower's right of redemption, the apex court in M Rajendran v M/s KPK Oils and Proteins India Ltd settled a significant legal debate. The Court held that the 2016 amendment to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act extinguishes the mortgagor's right of redemption once the notice for public auction is published .

The bench ruled that the amended provision, which states the right is lost if the borrower fails to pay their dues "before the date of publication of the notice for public auction," must be applied retrospectively to all cases where the auction notice was issued after its effective date (September 1, 2016). The Court reasoned that the SARFAESI Act, being a remedial statute for speedy recovery, gives this special provision precedence over the general right of redemption available under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which survives until the registration of the sale deed.

Significantly, the Court flagged an "inconsistency" between the amended Section 13(8) and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, urging the government to amend the rules to align them with the Act and prevent future litigation.

---

Civil and Criminal Procedure Developments

Civil Procedure Code:

• Counter-claim Against Co-defendant: In Rajul Manoj Shah v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel , the Court held that a counter-claim by a defendant solely against a co-defendant is not maintainable under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC.
• Review Jurisdiction & SLP Withdrawal: The Court clarified in Satheesh V.K. v. Federal Bank Ltd. that while the doctrine of merger doesn't apply to an SLP dismissed without reasons (allowing for a High Court review), this principle does not extend to cases where the SLP is withdrawn. Unconditional withdrawal bars a subsequent SLP challenging the same order.

Criminal Procedure Code:

• Quashing FIRs: In Nitin Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab , the Court quashed an FIR, observing it was a "retaliatory counterblast" filed after the accused had succeeded in foreign courts. It cautioned High Courts against mechanically dismissing quashing petitions, stressing the need to consider the context and motive behind the FIR's filing.
• Cancellation of Bail: The Court held in Abhimanue v. State of Kerala that there is no bar on the High Court entertaining a second application for cancellation of bail under its inherent powers, even after a similar application was rejected by the Sessions Judge. It also reiterated that mere criminal antecedents are not a sufficient ground to cancel bail without other incriminating circumstances.
• Search & Seizure Under Special Enactments: In a significant ruling in ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka , the Court underscored that procedural safeguards are mandatory for searches under special laws. It held that a search and seizure under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, requires prior recording of reasons and compliance with CrPC provisions, including the presence of two independent witnesses.

---

Key Rulings in Tax and Commercial Law

• Service Tax on Airport Cargo Handling: The Airports Authority of India (AAI) was held liable to pay service tax on services rendered in handling export cargo. In Airports Authority of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax , the Court distinguished between a 'definitional' and a 'charging' section, holding that even if 'handling of export cargo' is excluded from the definition of 'cargo handling service', the service is taxable under the wider sweep of Section 65(105)(zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court stated that "mere exclusion in the definitional section, does not preclude liability under charging section."
• No Export Duty on DTA to SEZ Supply: The Court ruled in Union of India v. Adani Power that goods supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit are not subject to export duty under the Customs Act, 1962. It reasoned that such a transfer is a "domestic supply" and not a physical export out of India, which is the trigger for the levy under Section 12 of the Customs Act.
• NI Act - Strict Construction: Reinforcing the principle of strict construction for penal statutes, the Court in Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahruden Noorul quashed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It held that the complaint is not maintainable if the demand notice does not mention the exact cheque amount, as this creates ambiguity about the 'said amount'. A typo in the amount was deemed fatal to the notice's validity.

This eventful week at the Supreme Court has provided crucial clarity on several complex legal issues, setting new precedents in sports law, banking regulations, and the enforcement of fundamental rights.