‘Don’t Burden the Court’: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Prasar Bharati Calling BCCI Side ‘Team India’

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi came down heavily on the petitioner for filing what it termed a frivolous and unnecessary petition, observing that such cases only add to the burden on constitutional courts.

“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,” the CJI remarked during the hearing.

Justice Bagchi observed that the issue would have merited consideration only if the Union government itself had approached the Court. He noted that there was “exemplary support” for the existing arrangement and that the pervasive control of BCCI is now statutorily recognised.

“The issue sometimes is that the tail is wagging the dog since there is money involved,” Justice Bagchi added, indicating the commercial realities surrounding cricket administration in India.

The Bench also took exception to the Delhi High Court’s handling of the matter, particularly its failure to impose costs while dismissing the plea. “The High Court was unfair. Was there no exemplary cost imposed? Otherwise how do you stop frivolous petitions like this in the Supreme Court?” the CJI said. He added that the absence of costs had emboldened the petitioner to approach the Apex Court.

Initially, the Bench indicated that costs of ₹10 lakh should be imposed on the petitioner. However, after the counsel requested leniency, the Court agreed to waive the costs. “Costs waived off. Plea dismissed,” the CJI said, bringing the proceedings to a close.

Notably, in October 2025, the Delhi High Court had dismissed a petition seeking to restrain Prasar Bharati, the government’s statutory broadcaster that operates Doordarshan and All India Radio, from portraying the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as the official Indian National Cricket Team. A Division Bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela termed the plea a “sheer wastage of the court’s time” while rejecting it.

The petition, filed by Advocate Reepak Kansal, argued that the BCCI is a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and not a statutory body or a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 154.

Kansal before the High Court had relied on responses from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports under the Right to Information Act to state that the BCCI is neither recognised as a National Sports Federation nor does it receive any financial support from the government. The plea stated that the cricket board is also not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Despite this, it alleged, Prasar Bharati’s platforms continue to refer to the BCCI squad as Team India or the Indian National Team and display the national flag during broadcasts of BCCI tournaments. This, the petitioner had contended, falsely confers national status on a private body and misleads the public by lending commercial legitimacy to a private association.

Case Title: Reepak Kansal v. Union of India

Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi

Hearing Date: January 22, 2026