The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on Bangladesh from all forms of international cricket, sharply criticising the petition as a waste of judicial time and lacking any legal basis.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia made it clear at the outset that the reliefs sought were not maintainable in law, as they involved matters of foreign policy and international relations—areas that fall squarely within the executive’s domain, not the judiciary’s.
The petition had been filed on the basis of allegations of violence against the Hindu minority community in Bangladesh, urging the court to direct Indian authorities and international cricket bodies to suspend Bangladesh from international competition.
The bench firmly rejected the plea, observing that courts cannot be asked to take policy decisions concerning foreign nations or conduct inquiries beyond India’s territorial jurisdiction. It stressed that Article 226 of the Indian Constitution does not empower Indian courts to issue writs against a foreign state, international sporting bodies or cricket boards of other countries.
The court also noted that the petitioner had sought directions against the International Cricket Council (ICC), the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) and Sri Lanka Cricket—entities over which Indian courts have no writ jurisdiction whatsoever.
During the hearing, the bench cautioned that such litigation amounted to a misuse of the PIL mechanism and warned that heavy costs could be imposed for wasting the court’s time. The Chief Justice remarked that PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of imagination or personal perception without a sound legal foundation.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), pointed out that impleading foreign cricket boards as parties was itself legally untenable.
The court also dismissed the petitioner’s attempt to rely on a judgment from a Pakistani court, stating categorically that Indian constitutional courts do not follow judicial precedents from other countries, particularly Pakistan.
Facing sustained objections from the bench, the petitioner—who identified himself as a law student—ultimately sought permission to withdraw the case. Allowing the request, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn and advised the petitioner to engage in more constructive and responsible legal work in the future.
