Today(6th September),The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking to compel authorities to provide basic amenities, like drinking water and toilets, to cricketers on public grounds in Mumbai. The court deemed the petition unnecessary and questioned its relevance.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(6th September), the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to compel authorities to provide drinking water and other basic facilities to cricketers practicing or playing unofficial matches on public grounds in Mumbai. The PIL, originally filed in the Bombay High Court, aimed to ensure that amenities like toilets and water were readily available to players. However, the court questioned the need for such a petition, considering it to be unnecessary.
“What Kind of a PIL is This?” Supreme Court Questions the Petition
During the hearing, a bench comprising Justices A S Oka and A G Masih expressed skepticism about the petitioner’s concerns.
“What kind of a PIL is this? Cricketers will take care if they are not provided toilets. Why an advocate should be bothered about it?”
-the bench remarked, dismissing the idea that such issues warranted judicial intervention.
The tone of the bench made it clear that the judiciary does not view the absence of toilets and drinking water as a pressing legal issue for cricketers.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court by a lawyer who challenged the Bombay High Court’s decision from June of the previous year. The High Court had dismissed the original petition, stating that there was no sufficient cause to pursue the matter. The lawyer, appearing in person, had filed the PIL seeking directions to the Mumbai Cricket Association and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to ensure the provision of basic amenities like drinking water and toilets to cricketers playing on public grounds.
In its observations, the Supreme Court bench emphasized the storied history of Mumbai’s public cricket grounds, which have produced some of India’s greatest cricketers, even without such facilities.
“Consider the attached photographs. Despite these conditions, Mumbai’s grounds have produced some of the greatest cricketers.”
-the court pointed out, adding weight to its argument that cricketers can manage without the need for judicial interference regarding basic facilities.
The bench also probed the petitioner’s background, asking whether he was more inclined toward cricket or legal practice. To this, the petitioner responded, “I am a practising advocate,” highlighting his role as a lawyer rather than a direct stakeholder like a cricketer.
Court Questions the Need for Toilets for Cricketers in a PIL
The Supreme Court continued to express its incredulity at the nature of the petition, suggesting that the PIL might not have been filed with a valid public interest in mind.
“What kind of requests are made in a public interest litigation? You are asking for toilets to be provided for cricketers on various grounds in Mumbai.”
-the bench observed, questioning the merit of such a request within the framework of a PIL.
High Court Previous Order Upheld
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s previous decision, agreeing with its assessment that the matter did not warrant judicial intervention.
“We agree with the high court’s views expressed in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the contested order.”
-the bench stated, signaling the end of the petitioner’s legal battle on this front.
The Bombay High Court had previously ruled that the petition lacked sufficient grounds to be entertained, particularly as the cricketers themselves had not raised the issue.
“The petitioner did not provide any reason why the players cannot address their grievances independently.”
– the High Court had stated in its earlier judgment, adding that the players were fully capable of raising such concerns if they deemed them necessary.
Interestingly, the High Court had adopted a balanced approach by suggesting that the cricketing bodies, namely the Mumbai Cricket Association and the BCCI, consider the petition as suggestions rather than binding directives.
“In these circumstances, the appropriate action would be to treat the PIL as suggestions for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and if feasible, proceed with their implementation.”
-the court had remarked.
However, the High Court was careful to clarify that this should not be construed as a mandatory requirement for the cricketing bodies to take action.
“We clarify that our order should not be interpreted as a directive for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant the relief sought by the petitioner, but rather as suggestions.”
-it had said, indicating a non-binding recommendation.
The High Court had further clarified that if any cricketers themselves were to raise the issue of lacking facilities, it would then be considered on its own merits.
“Should any aggrieved player raise this issue in the future, it will be considered on its own merits.”
-the High Court had stated, leaving the door open for future actions initiated by players.
