Today, on 21st January,The Delhi High Court criticised a PIL seeking to bar Bangladesh from cricket over alleged violence against the Hindu community. A Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia questioned maintainability, warned costs, prompting withdrawal.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court sharply criticised a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on Bangladesh’s participation in international cricketing events over alleged violence against the Hindu community.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia heared the case and questioned the legal basis of the plea, warning of heavy costs and ultimately prompting the petitioner to withdraw the case.
ALSO READ: PIL in Delhi High Court Seeks Ban on Bangladesh Cricket Over Attacks on Hindus
The PIL was filed by Devyani Singh, represented by advocate Pulkit Prakash. The petition requested that the Bangladesh cricket team be barred from participating in the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup, which begins next month and is being hosted jointly by India and Sri Lanka.
The petitioner has named the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the International Cricket Council (ICC), the Sri Lanka Cricket Board, and the Bangladesh Cricket Board as respondents to the PIL.
Hindus comprise nearly 8% of Bangladesh’s population, and reports of attacks on this community have surged in recent months. In December 2025, a Hindu man was lynched over allegations of blasphemy. The Indian government has expressed strong objections to these incidents, stating that they reflect “unremitting hostility against minorities.” However, Bangladesh maintains that these incidents are isolated criminal acts.
ALSO READ: Hindu Monk Chinmoy Krishna Das Granted Bail in Bangladesh After 6 Months in Sedition Case
The PIL urged the Court to restrain Bangladesh from participating in cricketing events, contending that continued sporting engagement legitimised alleged human rights violations. The matter was placed before a Division Bench led by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
At the outset, the Bench expressed serious reservations about the maintainability of the petition, observing that the issues raised fell squarely within the domain of foreign policy.
The Bench Said,
“What is this petition? You’re asking the Court to step into foreign policy. Shouldn’t this be left to the Ministry of External Affairs? Do you expect our writ to travel to Bangladesh?”
The Bench further questioned the applicability of any writ to international sporting bodies.
The Bench questioned,
“The ICC is organising the event—will our writ apply to the ICC? We caution you: this PIL lacks legal foundation and may invite heavy costs. What is the law you rely on?”
Appearing for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted the sweeping nature of the petition.
Adv Tushar Mehta (for BCCI) said,
“Have Your Lordships noted the other respondents? They include the Bangladesh Cricket Board and the Sri Lankan Cricket Board.”
The Chief Justice strongly objecting the idea of issuing directions against foreign entities, said,
“You’re a law student? We caution you—this petition wastes the Court’s time. No writ can be issued to foreign cricket boards, the ICC, or even the Government of India to deal with the situation in Bangladesh in this manner.”
He further questioned,
“How can a writ possibly lie against the Bangladesh or Sri Lankan cricket boards?”
The petitioner attempted to rely on earlier instances where courts had entertained matters involving international cricket bodies, including the ICC and the England and Wales Cricket Board. However, the Bench remained unconvinced and cautioned the petitioner repeatedly.
When asked to distinguish between appellate proceedings and writ jurisdiction, the exchange took a sharper turn.
The Bench questioned,
“Can you explain the distinction between an FAO and a writ petition?”
The petitioner answered,
“Yes—an FAO arises under the Code of Civil Procedure. I was also looking for guidance from international jurisdictions and came across a judgment from Pakistan, though I couldn’t trace a proper citation.”
This submission drew a pointed response from the Court.
The court asked,
“Do we follow Pakistani jurisprudence? You are relying on a judgment from Pakistan?”
Faced with sustained judicial resistance and the prospect of costs, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the PIL.
The petitioner requested,
“In that case, I seek permission to withdraw the PIL.”
Before allowing withdrawal, the Chief Justice delivered a final, stinging remark. The bench remarked,
“Thoda constructive kaam Kariye. Bohot kuchh constructive kaam hai karne ko”
The proceeding held the judiciary’s consistent stance that courts cannot be used to dictate foreign policy or regulate international sporting bodies, particularly through PILs lacking statutory or constitutional backing. The Delhi High Court’s remarks serve as a cautionary reminder against misusing public interest litigation for issues beyond judicial competence.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
