Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JJ.
Geeta Rani - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 34053 of 2018
Decided On : 04-04-2019
BCCI - Jurisdiction of the writ Court is invoked, seeking waiver of locus standi rule, in cases where poor, down trodden and depraved members of the Society, not able to approach the Court, to vindicate a legal wrong of injury caused to them, for violation of legal and constitutional rights. Concept of PIL was to espouse the case of the marginalised and oppressed. While considering the growth of Public Interest Litigations, we deem it fit to consider the observations, in the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India reported in 2018 (6) SCC 72. At paragraph Nos.96 to 98, it held as follows:-
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a housewife, filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) alleging that BCCI, as a private body, without any express authority from the Government, represents India in International Cricket Counsel (ICC), and selects a team called Team India. The petitioner argued that BCCI's use of the emblem 'Order of the Star of India' and the word 'India' in its name violates 'The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the BCCI does discharge public functions like the selection of the Indian Cricket Team and controlling the activities of players and others involved in the game of cricket. The court also noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is consistently monitoring the functions of BCCI and that the writ petition is frivolous and an abuse of process of law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the writ Court, the misuse of Public Interest Litigation, and the alleged violation of 'The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950' by BCCI.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petition was an abuse of process of law and that the petitioner had not shown any violation of the provisions of 'The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950'. The court also emphasized the need to discourage frivolous public interest litigations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition as frivolous and an abuse of process of law, refraining from imposing costs on the petitioner but expressing hope that the petitioner will not indulge in filing such frivolous writ petitions in the future.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus
(i). to direct the first respondent to restrict BCCI, second respondent and its affiliated bodies/associations to show BCCI/second respondent as official representative of India.
(ii). to take legal action against the members of BCCI respondent No.2 to represent our country at national or international level without any permission authority/sanction from the government and
(iii). to create a body of its own and register under the International Cricket Council to be the official representative of the nation;
(iv). To the first respondent, directing to take suitable action for violation of Section 3 of the Emblem and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 against the BCCI respondent No.2 and its affiliated bodies/associations;
(v). to restrict respondent No.1 to give benefits i.e, government employments and national awards/Khel Ratna/Bharat Ratna etc., to the players of respondent No.2 as players of official team; and
(vi). Direct the third respondent to deregister BCCI respondent No.2 as its include the name of nation.)
1. Instant writ petition, purportedly to be in public interest, has been filed by Ms.Geetha Rani, W/o. Reepak Kansal, for the following reliefs:-
(i). To direct the first respondent, to restrict BCCI, second respondent and its affiliated bodies/associations, to show BCCI/second respondent, as official representative of India.
(ii). To take legal action against the members of BCCI, respondent No.2, to represent our Country, at National or International level, without any permission authority/sanction from the Government and
(iii). To create a body of its own and register, under the International Cricket Council to be the official representative of the Nation;
(iv). To direct the first respondent, to take suitable action, for violation of Section 3 of the Emblem and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 against the BCCI respondent No.2 and its affiliated bodies/associations;
(v). To restrict respondent No.1 to give benefits i.e, government employments and national awards/Khel Ratna/Bharat Ratna etc., to the players of respondent No.2, as players of official team; and
(vi). To direct the third respondent, to de-register BCCI, respondent No.2 as its include the name of Nation.
2. Petitioner a house wife, has averred in the writ petition that the Board of Control for Cricket in India, second respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as BCCI), is registered as society in Tamil Nadu, under the Societies Registration Act. According to the petitioner, even though the second respondent has always denied its status, as an authority, amenable to Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it has used the Emblem “Order of the Star of India”, emblem under the British Raj. Petitioner would state that the second respondent, as a private body, without any express authority from the Government, represents India in International Cricket Counsel (ICC), a body which governs cricket activities throughout the world. The petitioner also states that being a private body, it selects a team, which is called, Team India. According to the petitioner, being a private body, second respondent, has its own process of selecting the players, which is completely opaque and not transparent. There is no Governmental control. Petitioner states that a private body cannot be permitted to select the National Cricket team. Union of India cannot permit the National Team being selected, without having any control. Petitioner also states that by using the symbol of the “Order of the Star of India”, which is the emblem of British Raj, and using the word India in its name. Second respondent has grossly violated “The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (Act 12 of 1950).Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, for the relief stated supra.
3. Heard Mr.Yadunandan Bansal, learned co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
