The Board of Control for Cricket in India has formally defended its decision to bar Overseas Citizen of India cardholders from participating in domestic cricket before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the restriction is directly linked to the eligibility criteria for international selection, according to a report by Hindustan Times. The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad, who have since directed both parties to file written submissions ahead of the next hearing on August 13.
BCCI argues citizenship is the only path to eligibility
The BCCI’s position before the court was unambiguous. The board submitted that OCI cardholders are not permitted to participate in tournaments it organises because only Indian nationals can ultimately be considered for selection to represent India in international cricket. The board told the court that the restriction is not permanent, adding that it had already communicated to OCI cardholders that obtaining Indian citizenship would remove the bar entirely. In doing so, the BCCI framed the eligibility policy as a logical extension of the pathway to international representation rather than an act of exclusion. The board further submitted that the petitioners and their parents would need to make a “conscious decision” on whether to pursue Indian citizenship if they wished to compete in BCCI-organised tournaments.
Twelve OCI cardholders challenge the 2023 resolution
The petition was filed in July 2024 by twelve young cricketers holding OCI cards, challenging a 2023 BCCI resolution that declared foreign passport holders — including OCI and Person of Indian Origin cardholders — ineligible to participate in board-organised domestic competitions. The petitioners argued that the resolution reversed eligibility criteria under which OCI cardholders had previously been permitted to play, and that no adequate justification had been offered for the change. The petition characterised the shift as “The sudden change in the eligibility criteria is arbitrary, without application of mind and, hence, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” which guarantees equality before the law.
Petitioners argue policy amounts to discrimination
The petitioners told the court that several among them had lived and trained in India for years and had already applied for Indian citizenship, though those applications remain pending. Counsel for the petitioners described the policy as manifestly arbitrary during oral submissions, arguing that OCI cardholders who had built their cricketing foundations in India were being penalised for a status they did not choose. The petition went further, contending that denying these cricketers access to domestic sport amounted to gross injustice and discrimination, and that participation in sport is essential to a child’s growth and overall development — not a privilege that should be contingent on passport status.
The petition also drew a direct comparison between OCI families and Indian citizens in terms of their contribution to the country. “The parents of the petitioners are on the same pedestal in terms of contribution to the nation in terms of direct and indirect taxes, as any other citizen is. Should their children not be entitled to be treated equally? Would it not be harsh to expect that they may have to compulsorily leave the country to pursue their dreams out of India and leave behind their family?” the petition stated. The financial burden of sending children abroad to pursue cricket, it argued, would fall squarely on families who have chosen to make India their home.
Bench suggests overseas opportunities may serve petitioners better
The Division Bench offered observations during the hearing that cut across both sides of the argument. Rather than signalling a clear position on the constitutional question, the judges pointed to the competitive nature of Indian cricket as a reason the petitioners might find better prospects elsewhere. “Why don’t you play there, as there can be better chances for you to get selected, because in India everyone plays cricket,” the bench remarked, adding that the petitioners retained the option of returning to India in the future should they wish to do so.
The bench also addressed the citizenship dimension directly. “India is your parents’ motherland; come back to India. But if your country is not letting you renounce your citizenship, that is a different matter,” the judges said, acknowledging that the ability to obtain Indian citizenship may not be straightforward for all petitioners depending on the laws of their country of current nationality.
Court seeks written submissions ahead of August hearing
Having heard arguments from both sides, the Division Bench determined that the matter warranted detailed consideration and directed the BCCI and the petitioners to present their respective positions in writing. The case has been listed for its next hearing on August 13, when the court is expected to continue examining whether the BCCI’s 2023 eligibility policy withstands constitutional scrutiny. The outcome will have significant implications not only for the twelve petitioners but for the broader question of how cricket’s most powerful domestic board defines eligibility in an era of increasingly complex citizenship and diaspora identities.
