Kerala High Court dismisses petition challenging BCCI's use of name 'Indian Premier League'

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation petition challenging the use of the name Indian Premier League (IPL) by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) [Ashique Karoth v Union of India & ors].

The petitioner had contended that IPL was not an official national tournament and hence could not use the term 'Indian'.

However, the Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM found this contention to be unsustainable and without any merit.

The Court observed that the petitioner's belated realisation on the use of the term 'Indian' in IPL was insufficient to invoke the Court's jurisdiction, after the tournament had been conducted for several years.

"The said tournament is continuing for several years and it is now stated that the petitioner recently realised that the IPL is not an official Cricket tournament of the Country and as such the use of the name Indian Premier League is illegal as used by the Board of Control for Cricket. We find no merit in the substance of the said argument and hence we do not feel that it would be proper to keep this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation," the Court said.

The petition was filed by a social worker Ashique Karoth who claimed that the IPL, a franchise-based twenty-20 cricket tournament organised by the BCCI, was not an officially recognised national cricket tournament.

Hence, the use of the name 'Indian Premier League' was misleading and illegal, he claimed.

The petitioner relied on documents indicating that the BCCI was not recognised as a National Sports Federation by the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and BCCI's own Memorandum of Association which showed that it conducted the IPL as a private tournament.

The plea thus sought judicial intervention to restrain the BCCI from using the name 'Indian Premier League' for its tournament.

However, the Court was not persuaded and dismissed the case.

The petitioner was represented by advocates PV Rema and MV Rathish.

Senior government pleader V Tekchand appeared for the State government.

Central government counsel Arjun Venugopal appeared for the Union government.

[Read Judgment]