Top News

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday dismissed a petition seeking to restrain public broadcaster Prasar Bharati from referring to the BCCI-run cricket team as “Team India” or the “Indian national cricket team”, calling the plea frivolous and a waste of judicial time. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the Delhi High Court’s October 8 order that had rejected the public interest litigation filed by advocate Reepak Kansal.

The bench strongly criticised the petitioner for approaching the court with what it described as an unnecessary and meritless plea. Observing that such cases add to judicial backlog, the court remarked,

“You just start sitting at home and draft petitions. What is the problem in all of this? Don’t burden the court. The fact that exemplary cost was not saddled with has encouraged him to move this court.”

The judges noted that the absence of exemplary costs at the High Court stage had encouraged the petitioner to pursue the matter further.

The Supreme Court also indicated that it had considered imposing a cost of ₹10 lakh to discourage similar petitions but refrained from doing so after repeated requests from the petitioner’s counsel.

Read also: Eden Gardens get green signal for hosting T20 World Cup matches in ICC amidst Bangladesh security claims

During the hearing, the bench questioned the foundation of the petition, which argued that the BCCI-run team should not be projected as the national side. The bench not only questions the pattern but also backs Doordarshan, saying that even if Doordarshan or another authority refers to the side as “Team India”, it does not amount to misrepresentation. The bench said,

“This is sheer wastage of the court’s time and your time... What is this argument? Are you saying that the team does not represent India? The team which is going and playing everywhere, they are they misrepresenting? Forget about the BCCI, if Doordarshan or any other authority projects it as Team India, is it not Team India?"

Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed to the broader regulatory environment governing the BCCI, stating,

“The pervasive control is statutorily recognised now.”

He added that issues often arise because of the commercial value attached to the sport, observing that “sometimes tail is wagging the dogs since there is money involved.”

The court reiterated that frivolous public interest litigations undermine the judicial process and should be discouraged through strict measures, including costs, when warranted.

The PIL had claimed that the BCCI is a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and is neither a National Sports Federation nor a public authority under the RTI Act. It argued that branding the team as “Team India” without formal government sanction misleads the public and may violate the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, and the Flag Code of India, 2002.

The Delhi High Court had earlier rejected these arguments, with Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioning whether any national sports team is directly selected by the government. Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya had similarly termed the litigation pointless, noting that teams representing India across sports are not chosen by government officials yet legitimately represent the country.