NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an appeal filed by lawyer Reepak Kansal, seeking a declaration that the unauthorised use of the name “India” and the Indian National Flag by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) violates the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, and the Flag Code of India, 2002.
“There is no issue. The petition has been filed for no reason. It is a wastage of judicial time,” observed a three-judge Bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, while dismissing the appeal.
When the plea came up for hearing, the top court strongly warned Kansal for filing what it termed a “frivolous” petition. The CJI initially dictated that a cost of Rs 10 lakh would be imposed on the petitioner. However, after Kansal pleaded for leniency and requested that no costs be imposed, the court refrained from doing so.
During the hearing, Kansal argued before the court whether the BCCI could claim ownership over Indian cricket.
Responding to the submission, CJI Kant observed that if multiple teams claimed to represent India, it would lead to inter-se rivalry. “Let us have a clear identity about who will represent India,” the CJI told Kansal.
In his appeal, Kansal contended that the BCCI is not a National Sports Federation (NSF) and that Prasar Bharati has been wrongly portraying the BCCI-managed team as “Team India”.
He sought a direction from the top court in the form of a writ of mandamus, restraining the respondents, the Union of India and others, from allowing any private body, including the BCCI, to be portrayed as a national team without statutory recognition.
“Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents, including Doordarshan, All India Radio and other government-run platforms under Prasar Bharati, from projecting the BCCI-managed team as ‘Team India’ or the Indian national team,” Kansal said in his prayers.
The appeal was moved after his plea was rejected by the Delhi High Court on October 8 last year.
Kansal alleged that the High Court had erroneously dismissed his writ petition challenging the unauthorised and illegal portrayal of the cricket team managed by the BCCI as “Team India” on official national broadcasting platforms, namely Doordarshan and All India Radio, without any authorisation, approval or recognition from the Government of India.
He further argued that the BCCI is a private association registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and is not recognised as a National Sports Federation under the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.
Referring to Clauses 3.6, 3.7 and 9.3 of the Sports Code of India, 2011, Kansal stated that only recognised NSFs are entitled to use the word “India” in their name, select teams to represent the country at international forums, and receive governmental recognition and financial assistance.
Supporting his plea, Kansal said Clause 3.6 of the Sports Code specifically provides that only NSFs recognised by the Government of India through the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports can select and send teams to represent India in international competitions and use the word “India” in their name.
“Unrecognised bodies are expressly barred from such representation. It is a settled position of law that the Sports Code is mandatory and applicable to all National Sports Federations and the Indian Olympic Association, and that the government shall not fund or recognise any body that does not comply with the Sports Code,” he said.
The petition contended that the BCCI, not being recognised as a National Sports Federation, has no authority to represent the country or use the name “India” for its teams or events at the national or international level.
“Despite this settled position, Prasar Bharati, a statutory body under the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990, continues to portray the team managed by the BCCI as ‘Team India’ on national broadcasting channels without any notification, circular or authorisation from the Government of India. This constitutes misrepresentation, commercial exploitation of national identity, and violation of the Sports Code, the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, and constitutional norms,” the plea submitted.