Court questions legitimacy of plea seeking international ban
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday firmly rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that called for banning Bangladesh from international cricket competitions. The petition, filed by law student Devyani Singh, cited alleged violence against the Hindu community in Bangladesh and sought to bar the nation’s participation in the upcoming ICC Men’s T20 World Cup.
According to a report by ANI, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia made it clear from the outset that the reliefs sought ventured into matters of foreign policy—areas far beyond the jurisdiction of the judiciary. The court questioned the fundamental validity of the plea, expressing disbelief over its premise.
“What kind of petition is this? You are asking the court to take a policy decision in respect of foreign affairs. Let it be left to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. You are asking us to conduct some inquiry in Bangladesh? Our writ will go there? Please bring some good causes. Can any writ be issued by us?” the Bench remarked during oral proceedings.
Petition’s scope challenged on legal grounds
The plea had named multiple respondents, including the Bangladesh Cricket Board, Sri Lanka Cricket, International Cricket Council (ICC), and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). However, the Bench reiterated that Indian courts have no writ jurisdiction over foreign entities, including cricket boards and international sporting bodies.
Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of India, appeared on behalf of the BCCI and pointed out that foreign cricket boards had also been unnecessarily impleaded. The Court also rejected the petitioner’s attempt to cite judgments from Pakistani courts to support her arguments.
“Do we follow the same jurisprudence as Pakistan? You are citing Pakistan judgement,” the Bench remarked sharply.
The Chief Justice further noted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be stretched to interfere with foreign governments or sporting matters beyond Indian territory. The Bench emphasized that PIL jurisdiction should not be misused to push personal opinions or pursue political sentiments.
Court allows withdrawal with stern closing words
After sustained objections on grounds of maintainability, the petitioner’s legal counsel ultimately sought permission to withdraw the plea. The Bench agreed, but not without issuing a strong caution against frivolous litigation.
“On being pointed out that the instant writ petition is not maintainable, the petitioner prays for withdrawal. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn,” the Court stated in its formal order.
Concluding the proceedings, the Bench offered pointed advice to the petitioner. “Thoda constructive kaam Kariye. Bohot kuchh constructive kaam hai karne ko (Please do some constructive work. There is a lot of constructive work to be done),” it said, making clear that the Court viewed the PIL as an unproductive and baseless use of judicial resources.
