The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a plea seeking directions to restrain the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) from referring to the national cricket team as the Indian cricket team. .A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi criticized the petitioner for filing the plea and observed that Delhi High Court, which had dismissed a similar plea earlier, should have imposed costs on him."You just start sitting at home and draft petitions. What is the problem in all of this ? There is a notification for National sports tribunal also with outstanding members. Don't burden the Court," CJI Kant remarked.Terming the plea frivolous, the Court said,"High Court was unfair. Was there no exemplary cost imposed otherwise how to stop frivolous petitions like this in Supreme Court?".The fact that exemplary costs was not saddled with has encouraged the petitioner to move the top court, the bench added.Though the bench was inclined to impose costs of ₹10 Lakh on the petitioner, it waived off the same following vehement requests from the counsel..Interestingly, during the hearing, Justice Bagchi remarked that there is exemplary support for the BCCI."Issue would have been if union came here but there is exemplary support for them. The pervasive control is statutorily recognised now. The issue is sometimes tail is wagging the dogs since there is money involved," the judge said..In October 2025, the High Court had pulled up the petitioner, advocate Reepak Kansal, for filing the public interest litigation (PIL). "Are you saying the team doesn’t represent India? This team, which is going everywhere and representing India, you are saying they don’t represent India?. Is it not Team India? If it is not Team India, please tell us why is it not Team India," Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked. Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya said that PIL was a sheer wastage of the court's time. "It is sheer wastage of the court’s time and your own time... Tell us about a national team, in a single sport which is selected by the government officials. Whether the Indian contingent taking part in the Commonwealth Games, Olympics... Are they selected by the government officials? Do they not represent India? Hockey, football, tennis, anything, any sport," the High Court remarked. .The PIL filed by Kansal argued that the BCCI is a private entity registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and is not a statutory body or State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. It said that the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has clarified through multiple Right to Information (RTI) replies that the BCCI is not recognised as a National Sports Federation (NSF) nor supported financially by the government as one.Despite this, government media platforms continue to refer to the BCCI cricket team as “Team India” or the “Indian National Team” and use Indian national symbols such as the flag during cricket broadcasts, the plea argued. "This practice amounts to misrepresentation and could potentially violate the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the Flag Code of India, 2002, which regulate the use of the national name, flag and symbols," the plea stated. It added that the misuse of the national name and flag by the public broadcasters not only misleads the citizens of India but also erodes the sanctity of national identity and symbols, which should be protected as a matter of constitutional propriety and public trust. .Therefore, Kansal sought to restrain BCCI from portraying the team as national team. He also sought directions to national broadcaster Prasar Bharti from "projecting the cricket team of the BCCI" as Team India or the Indian National Team. .Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
