Bombay HC Denies OCI Cricketers Interim Relief, Citing Cost to Indian Nationals

Mumbai, India – The Bombay High Court has declined to grant an interim mandatory injunction to a group of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) cardholders challenging a Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) resolution that bars them from participating in domestic cricket tournaments. In an order that weighs the rights of aspiring OCI cricketers against the opportunities for Indian nationals, a division bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna found that the petitioners had not met the high legal threshold required for such preliminary relief.

The Court's decision underscores a critical tension between the rights of OCIs and the policy objectives of national sports bodies. While expressing sympathy for the young athletes, the bench concluded that granting the injunction would be premature and could disadvantage Indian citizens competing for limited spots in domestic teams.

---

The Heart of the Dispute: BCCI's Eligibility Mandate

The legal battle stems from a resolution passed by the BCCI on December 18, 2023, which mandates that all players participating in its domestic tournaments must hold an Indian passport. This policy effectively ended the participation of OCI cardholders, many of whom are young cricketers who have spent years training and competing within the Indian domestic circuit, which was previously open to them.

The petitioners, led by Kavin Kartik, challenged this resolution in Kavin Kartik & Ors. v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India [WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 22903 OF 2024], arguing that the sudden change was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution. They contended that the policy unfairly disrupts their established careers and aspirations without a rational basis.

Advocate Kunal Cheema, representing the petitioners, argued that the exclusion was particularly unreasonable given that OCIs had historically been permitted to compete. He drew parallels to judicial pronouncements in other contexts, such as the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), where courts, including the Supreme Court, had found similar exclusions of OCIs to be unreasonable. The core of the petitioners' argument was that the BCCI's policy constituted a "manifestly arbitrary" action that could not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

BCCI's Defense: Protecting the National Feeder System

In response, the BCCI, represented by Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, defended the resolution as a considered policy decision. The cricketing body's primary argument centered on the nexus between domestic and international cricket. Since only Indian citizens are eligible to represent the Indian national team, the BCCI contended that it is logical and necessary to restrict participation in domestic tournaments—the primary feeder system for national selection—to Indian nationals. This, they argued, ensures that the resources and opportunities within the domestic structure are channeled towards developing talent for the national team.

The Court's Rationale: A High Bar for Interim Relief

The High Court's refusal to grant interim relief hinged on a rigorous application of the principles governing mandatory injunctions. The bench observed that the relief sought by the petitioners—to be allowed to play in the tournaments—was tantamount to granting the final relief of the main petition itself. In such cases, the law requires a standard higher than a mere prima facie case.

"A case of prima facie manifest arbitrariness has not been made out," the bench noted in its order dated September 26, 2025. "A case with a standard higher than the normal prima facie case has not been established."

The Court's analysis pivoted on a delicate balancing of interests. It acknowledged the potential "irreparable prejudice" to the petitioners, whose cricketing careers hang in the balance. However, it also gave significant weight to the consequences for Indian national players.

"Because allowing the Petitioners to participate in domestic tournaments would, to some extent, be at a cost of the Indian nationals, who would then proportionately not find a place in the team," the order stated. This reasoning highlights the zero-sum nature of selection in competitive sports and the Court's reluctance to intervene at an interim stage without being "fully apprised of the impact that such an order would have on players, who are already Indian nationals."

Legal Implications and Broader Significance

This order provides crucial insights for legal practitioners in both sports and constitutional law.

1. The 'Manifest Arbitrariness' Standard: The Court’s finding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate "prima facie manifest arbitrariness" sets a high bar for challenging policy decisions of autonomous sports bodies like the BCCI. It suggests that as long as a policy has a rational nexus to a legitimate objective (in this case, grooming talent for the national team), it may survive judicial scrutiny, at least at the interim stage.

2. OCI Rights in a National Context: The case adds to the evolving jurisprudence on the rights of OCI cardholders. While OCIs enjoy several rights akin to citizens, this case illustrates that these rights are not absolute, particularly in contexts directly linked to national representation. The Court’s distinction between general participation and a pathway to the national team is a critical one.

3. Judicial Restraint in Policy Matters: The decision reflects a degree of judicial restraint in interfering with the internal policy-making of a national sports federation. The Court has deferred to the BCCI’s expertise and prerogative in structuring its tournaments, pending a full hearing of the matter.

A Glimmer of Hope: A Directive to the BCCI

Despite denying the injunction, the Court did not close the door on the petitioners entirely. Recognizing the human element involved, the bench permitted the petitioners to make a formal representation to the BCCI for prospective relief. In a significant directive, the Court urged the cricketing body to handle the matter with sensitivity and speed.

“The BCCI must endeavour to take an expeditious decision on such representation because ultimately, they are dealing with the hopes and aspirations of young children, who we presume have been working hard to excel in cricket,” the bench urged. “The BCCI may consider whether any relief could be provided to these children, given the circumstances in which they are placed.”

This guidance suggests that the BCCI could potentially carve out exceptions, create a new category for OCIs, or provide a transitional period for those affected by the sudden policy shift.

The main writ petition is scheduled for admission on October 17, 2025, when the constitutional validity of the BCCI's resolution will be examined in detail. For now, the cricketing dreams of these young OCI players remain paused, awaiting a final decision from either the BCCI or the judiciary.