The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to prevent Prasar Bharati from referring to the Board of Control for Cricket in India's (BCCI) cricket squad as "Team India". The bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, deemed the plea a "sheer wastage of time," questioning the logic of arguing that a team playing internationally does not represent India.
The PIL was filed by an advocate, Reepak Kansal, who argued that referring to the BCCI team as "Team India" violates laws governing the use of national symbols. Kansal highlighted that the BCCI is a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and not a statutory body or a "State" according to Article 12 of the Constitution. He further pointed out that the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, in response to RTI queries, clarified that the BCCI is not recognized as a National Sports Federation (NSF), nor is cricket included in the list of sports eligible for government funding. Additionally, the BCCI has not been declared a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Despite this, Prasar Bharati, which operates Doordarshan and All India Radio, continues to use national symbols and portrays the privately-run BCCI team as the national team, which the petitioner claimed was an "arbitrary and misleading portrayal".
The court, however, did not find merit in the arguments presented. The bench questioned the petitioner, "Are you saying that the team does not represent India? The team which is going and playing everywhere, are they misrepresenting?". The court also highlighted the rules of the global sports ecosystem and past instances where the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has intervened when governments interfered in sports federations. Chief Justice Upadhyaya-led Bench remarked, "Are you aware of the rules of the IOC? Are you aware of the Olympic charter? Olympic movement? Are you aware that in the past, wherever there has been government intervention in sports, the IOC has come down heavily?".
The court further stated that it was a waste of judicial time and asked the advocate to "file better PILs". Consequently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the matter.
