The Madras High Court has dismissed as "frivolous" a PIL seeking legal action against the BCCI for representing the country in international events allegedly without any proper approval.
"This petition has attempted to start a parallel enquiry by the Madras High Court when the Supreme Court is monitoring the activities of BCCI. This is against judicial propriety and discipline," a bench comprising Justice S Manikumar and Justice Subramonium Prasad said Thursday, 4 April.
It cannot be said the petitioner, Geeta Rani, hailing from Delhi, was not aware of the fact that the apex court had been monitoring the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) activities by constituting a committee and news about it was being published regularly.
Referring to the prayer for restraining the BCCI from the usage of colonial emblem without prior permission of the government, the bench said the cricket board was not a body which carries on any trade, business or profession.
Therefore, it was not covered under section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper use) Act 1980, it said.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the BCCI was registered as a society in Tamil Nadu under the Societies Registration Act and always denied its status of being a State under the Article 12 of the Constitution.
Even at the time of registration, the BCCI did not seek recognition or affiliation from the government to represent India by it. Presuming it to be the sole authority to govern cricket, without any sanction, the BCCI started to act as governing body of cricket as well as the representative of India, he argued.
Senior counsel PR Raman for the BCCI argued that the board had not violated the Emblem and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
Dismissing the petition as "frivolous", the bench said the Supreme Court and high courts in catena of judgements have taken note of the growing tendency of abuse of PILs.
The jurisdiction of the writ court was invoked seeking waiver of locus standi rule in case where the poor, downtrodden and deprived member of society was not able to approach the court to vindicate a legal wrong of injury caused to them, it noted.
“The petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law.”SC Bench
"We refrain from imposing cost on the petitioner with a hope that the petitioner will not indulge in filing such frivolous petitions in future," the bench said.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)