New Delhi: Its own league committee was ill-equipped to decide on Inter Kashi’s re-registration of foreign player Mario Barco, the All India Football Federation conceded to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, in an apparent admission of miscarriage of procedure while dealing with the issue that ultimately decided the I-League championship.
Through a 240-page document, the AIFF had argued why its appeal committee’s decision to strip Kashi of four points and declare Churchill Brothers as I-League champions was “legally sound” and based on a “correct interpretation” of the I-League regulations.
“The re-registration of Mr. Barco was impermissible under the governing rules, and the AIFF Appeals Committee rightly held that Inter Kashi FC had fielded an ineligible player and that the consequences under the AIFF Disciplinary Code and the AIFF Regulations on Status and Transfer of Players must follow,” AIFF’s said in its initial submission.
The matter had landed into the lap of the appeal committee via the disciplinary committee after approval of re-registration from the league committee, whose “opinion was void ab initio” and tainted the entire process, the federation told CAS.
“…, the AIFF League Committee’s act of suggesting that the reregistration of Mr. Barco “may be approved”, in the absence of a statutory provision for exercising such authority, was null and void in law, incapable of being cured. Accordingly, the reliance placed by Inter Kashi FC on the League Committee opinion/suggestion is misconceived and untenable.
“The re-registration of Mr. Barco rested solely on an opinion/suggestion delivered by a body that was neither competent to interpret the regulation in the context it was invoked, nor validly approached for such interpretation.”
Appeals and committees
After suffering a season-ending injury on January 9, Kashi de-registered Barco on Jan 16 and replaced him with Matija Babovic under Article 6.5.7 of I-League regulations that says: “A foreign player can only be replaced by another foreign player by the respective Participating Club (in case an injury or an illness prevents such foreign player from continuing to play for the rest of the Competition or after mutual termination of contract) up to 3 (three) times in the Competition. The Participating Players can only be replaced with another within the time as notified by the AIFF and not beyond the same.”
However on Jan 31, Kashi sought to re-register Barco citing his early recovery after mutually terminating the contract of another overseas player Julen Perez Del Pinto, and was turned down by AIFF’s competitions department, stating that the replacement (and subsequent re-registration) sought did not comply with Article 6.5.7.
When Kashi raised a fresh appeal on Feb 7, an opinion was sought on the matter from the league committee four days later. On Feb 15, the league committee had “expressed a suggestion/opinion” that the majority were in favour of approving re-registration of Barco inter alia citing “ambiguity” in I-League regulations.
“As such, three (3) of the five (5) members of the AIFF League Committee suggested that Mr. Barco’s may be re-registered,” the AIFF said.
The AIFF’s disciplinary committee then heard and adjudicated on the matter on April 24, which dismissed the complaints citing “lack of jurisdiction” on April 29.
A day later, acting on Kashi’s appeal, the appeal committee ruled that the league committee decision was “bad in law” and Barco’s re-registration was “not permissible” as he was “ineligible” and therefore, matches where he was fielded by Kashi must be “forfeited pursuant to the applicable regulations”.
We knew on April 6th 🏆
The World knows today 🤭
Inter Kashi. Remember the name! 💯#IndianFootball #HarHarKashi #Kashi #ILeague pic.twitter.com/c8y7EWTNJt
— Inter Kashi (@InterKashi) July 18, 2025
League committee decision ‘not binding’
The federation noted that as per its statutes, an approval from executive committee was needed for league committee’s decisions or suggestions to come into effect, which didn’t happen in this instance.
“The consequent step taken by the AIFF Competitions Department to enable the CMS portal should not in any manner be construed that the same was its decision. Rather each club is still liable to comply with the regulations and bears strict liability pertaining to rule violation.
“…the AIFF League Committee is a committee empowered to make suggestions or decisions on league-related matters, which (when read in conjunction with the AIFF League Committee’s definition under Article 1.13 of the I-League Regulations) inherently require ratification or endorsement by the AIFF Executive Committee to acquire formal effect, particularly where such decisions impact the eligibility framework and regulatory integrity of the competition.
“Notably, in the present case, no such ratification of the League Committee Opinion/suggestion for permitting Mr. Barco’s re-registration was ever placed on record or effected.
“The League Committee has no independent adjudicatory or executive authority to render binding interpretations or grant approvals. Its jurisdiction is entirely recommendatory, and its outputs, at best, carry consultative value subject to further ratification by the competent bodies – in this case, the AIFF Executive Committee.
“It is submitted that the AIFF League Committee, therefore, did not purport to pass a conclusive order or decision, but merely flagged a possibility that was neither ratified nor finalised by any competent authority, including the AIFF Executive Committee.”
But CAS rejected this argument and awarded Kashi the title on July 18, making it the second time in a span of 30 days that an AIFF appeal committee decision was reversed at the Swiss court.
“The appeal filed on 4 June 2025 by Inter Kashi FC against the decision issued on 31 May 2025 by the Appeal Committee of the All-India Football Federation is partially upheld,” sole arbitrator Frans de Weger said in its judgement.
“The decision issued on 31 May 2025 by the Appeal Committee of the All-India Football Federation is set aside. The AIFF shall forthwith declare Inter Kashi FC as winner of the I-league 2024-25 season.”
The AIFF subsequently declared Kashi the I-League champions in reference to the CAS judgement.