The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking to bar BCCI from calling the national cricket team the Indian cricket team. A bench led by CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi criticized the petitioner, citing Delhi High Court rejection.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court dismissed a petition requesting that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) be prohibited from referring to the “national cricket team” as the “Indian cricket team”.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi criticized the petitioner for filing the plea and noted that the Delhi High Court had previously rejected a similar petition and should have imposed costs on him.
CJI Kant remarked,
“You just start sitting at home and draft petitions. What is the problem in all of this? There is a notification for the National Sports Tribunal also with outstanding members. Don’t burden the Court,”
Labeling the petition as frivolous, the Court stated,
“High Court was unfair. Was there no exemplary cost imposed? Otherwise, how to stop frivolous petitions like this in Supreme Court?”
The absence of such costs, the bench added, had prompted the petitioner to approach the highest court. While the bench considered imposing costs of Rs 10 lakh on the petitioner, it ultimately waived the amount following fervent appeals from the petitioner’s counsel.
Interestingly, during the hearing, Justice Bagchi mentioned that there is substantial support for the BCCI.
He said,
“The issue would have been if the union came here, but there is exemplary support for them. The pervasive control is statutorily recognized now. The issue is sometimes the tail is wagging the dogs since there is money involved,”
In October 2025, the High Court criticized the petitioner, advocate Reepak Kansal, for filing the public interest litigation (PIL).
Justice Gedela remarked,
“Are you saying the team doesn’t represent India? This team, which is going everywhere and representing India, you are saying they don’t represent India? Is it not Team India? If it is not Team India, please tell us why is it not Team India,”
Chief Justice Upadhyaya stated that the PIL was a blatant waste of the court’s time.
The High Court commented,
“It is sheer wastage of the court’s time and your own time… Tell us about a national team in a single sport that is selected by government officials. Whether the Indian contingent taking part in the Commonwealth Games, Olympics… Are they selected by government officials? Do they not represent India? Hockey, football, tennis—any sport,”
The petition filed by Kansal argued that the BCCI is a private entity registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and not a statutory body or State as defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
It pointed out that the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has clarified through multiple Right to Information (RTI) responses that the BCCI is not recognized as a National Sports Federation (NSF) nor is it financially supported by the government as one.
ALSO READ: Champak vs BCCI: Delhi High Court Clash Over IPL’s Robotic Dog Name Sparks Legal Storm!
Despite this, government media platforms continue to refer to the BCCI cricket team as “Team India” or the “Indian National Team,” using national symbols like the flag during broadcasts, the petition claimed.
The plea asserted that,
“This practice amounts to misrepresentation and could potentially violate the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, and the Flag Code of India, 2002, which regulate the use of the national name, flag, and symbols,”
Furthermore, it alleged that the misuse of the national name and flags by public broadcasters not only misleads Indian citizens but also undermines the sanctity of national identity and symbols, which should be safeguarded as a matter of constitutional propriety and public trust.
As a result, Kansal sought to restrict the BCCI from presenting the team as a national team, and he also requested that national broadcaster Prasar Bharti refrain from portraying the cricket team of the BCCI as Team India or the Indian National Team.
Case Title: Reepak Kansal v. Union of India
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
