New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition seeking to restrain public broadcaster Prasar Bharati from referring to the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s cricket team as “Team India,” terming the plea frivolous and a waste of judicial time.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi upheld the Delhi High Court’s October 8 order that had rejected the public interest litigation filed by advocate Reepak Kansal. The top court strongly criticised the petitioner for pursuing the matter despite the high court’s clear findings.
“You just sit at home and draft petitions. Don’t burden the court,” the bench remarked, adding that the absence of exemplary costs at the high court level appeared to have encouraged the petitioner to approach the apex court.
The plea had argued that referring to the BCCI-run cricket team as “Team India” or the “Indian national cricket team” was misleading, as the BCCI is a private body and not a government entity. It claimed that such usage violated laws governing national symbols and names, including the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act and provisions of the Flag Code of India.
The petitioner also contended that the BCCI is neither recognised as a National Sports Federation nor classified as a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, and therefore should not be associated with official national representation.
Rejecting these arguments, the bench questioned the very premise of the petition, observing that the cricket team represents India internationally regardless of the BCCI’s legal status. “Are you saying the team does not represent India? The team that goes and plays everywhere is misrepresenting the country?” the court asked.
The bench further noted that if Doordarshan or any other authority projects the team as “Team India,” there is nothing unlawful or misleading about it. It concluded that the petition lacked merit and amounted to unnecessary litigation, reiterating that courts should not be burdened with such claims.
