BOMBAY HIGH COURT has declined to grant interim relief to a group of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) challenging the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) decision barring them from participating in domestic tournaments. However, the court directed the BCCI to expeditiously consider applications filed by the players seeking prospective relief in their case.
The bench of Justices MS Sonak and Advait Sethna said, “The BCCI must endeavour to take an expeditious decision on such representation because ultimately, they are dealing with the hopes and aspirations of young children, who we presume have been working hard to excel in cricket.” It added that the board “may consider whether any relief could be provided to these children, given the circumstances in which they are placed.”
The petitioners had challenged a BCCI resolution dated 18 December 2023, which stipulates that only Indian passport holders are eligible to play in domestic cricket tournaments. Represented by advocates Kunal Cheema and Datta Mane, the players argued that the decision was arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. They also pointed out that OCI holders had been allowed to compete in domestic events until the previous year, and that several of them had already applied for Indian citizenship.
The BCCI, represented by advocates Ankit Lohia, Ranjit Shetty, and Tejas Gokhale, defended its stance, stating that domestic tournaments serve as the feeder system for the national team, which can only comprise Indian citizens. Therefore, the eligibility restriction was both logical and necessary, the board maintained. The BCCI further argued that its decision was collectively taken and not arbitrary, and that granting interim relief would effectively amount to allowing the petition at a preliminary stage.
The bench remarked, “At this stage, we are not exactly sure whether the approach of the BCCI is correct or not,” but ultimately held that the petitioners had not demonstrated a case of manifest arbitrariness strong enough to warrant interim injunction.
The matter will now be heard on 17 October, when the main petition will be taken up for admission.
