‘What kind of plea is this?’: Delhi HC rejects bid to ban Bangladesh from cricket
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday firmly shut the door on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to bar Bangladesh from international cricket, sharply questioning the intent and legal basis of a plea that attempted to link sporting participation with alleged communal violence.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia refused to entertain the petition, filed by a law student, and made it clear that Indian courts cannot be turned into arbiters of foreign policy or international sporting sanctions.
“What kind of petition is this?” the Bench asked, visibly unimpressed. “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. Can our writ go to Bangladesh?”
The petitioner had sought directions to ban Bangladesh from all cricketing competitions until violence against the Hindu community allegedly stopped, including a specific request to bar the Bangladesh team from the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup scheduled to begin next month. The tournament is being jointly hosted by India and Sri Lanka.
Pulling up the petitioner and her counsel, the court said no writ could be issued to Bangladesh, the International Cricket Council (ICC) or the Sri Lanka Cricket Board to prevent a country’s participation in an international tournament. It also rejected the suggestion that the court could direct the Indian government on how to manage its diplomatic relations with another sovereign nation.
The Bench further took exception to the petitioner’s lawyer for citing an unrelated Delhi High Court judgment and even an order of a Pakistani court to support the plea. “Do we follow the same jurisprudence as Pakistan?” the court remarked.
Warning that such petitions waste judicial time, Chief Justice Upadhyaya cautioned the petitioner, Devyani Singh, that the court was inclined to impose exemplary costs for filing what it termed a frivolous plea.
The PIL had named the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the ICC, Sri Lanka Cricket Board and the Bangladesh Cricket Board as respondents.
After hearing the court’s strong observations and repeated warnings about costs, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the plea. Accepting the request, the Bench dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
“On being pointed out that the instant writ petition is not maintainable, the petitioner prays for withdrawal,” the court noted in its order.
As the hearing drew to a close, the court delivered a parting message to the petitioner: “Thoda constructive kaam kijiye. Bohot kuch constructive kaam hai karne ko (Please do some constructive work. There is a lot of constructive work to be done).”
Source: Bar and Bench