A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia expressed strong reservations about the maintainability of the petition, observing that the reliefs sought involved matters of foreign policy and international relations, which fall squarely within the domain of the executive.
At the outset, the Bench questioned the very nature of the petition, remarking that courts cannot be asked to take policy decisions concerning foreign nations or to conduct inquiries beyond Indian jurisdiction.
The Chief Justice observed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be extended to foreign governments, international sporting bodies, or cricket boards of other countries.
The Court further noted that the petitioner was seeking directions against the International Cricket Council (ICC), as well as the Bangladesh and Sri Lankan Cricket Boards, entities over which Indian courts have no writ jurisdiction.
The Bench cautioned the petitioner that such litigation amounted to a misuse of PIL jurisdiction and warned that heavy costs could be imposed for wasting judicial time.
During the hearing, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, appeared on behalf of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and pointed out that the Bangladesh Cricket Board and the Sri Lankan Cricket Board had also been impleaded as parties.
The Bench repeatedly cautioned the petitioner, who identified himself as a law student that courts cannot issue writs to foreign cricket boards or direct the Government of India to deal with another country in a particular manner.
The Chief Justice emphasised that PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked based on imagination or personal perceptions without legal foundation.
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s attempt to rely on a judgment of a Pakistani court, observing that Indian constitutional courts do not follow Pakistani jurisprudence.
Faced with sustained objections from the Bench regarding maintainability, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the PIL.
Allowing the withdrawal, the Chief Justice advised the petitioner to engage in more constructive work, observing that such petitions are not legally maintainable and unnecessarily burden the Court.
“On being pointed out that the instant writ petition is not maintainable, the petitioner prays for withdrawal. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”