Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against BCCI and Delhi Capitals Over IPL Security Fees

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Delhi Capitals regarding unpaid security fees for Indian Premier League (IPL) matches. The court stated that the decision of the Delhi Police not to charge for security was a policy decision that did not require interference from the judiciary.

The PIL and Petitioner’s Argument

The PIL was filed by a social worker who sought directions from the court for the BCCI and Delhi Capitals to pay a “substantial amount” to the Delhi Police for security services provided during IPL seasons. Advocate Ali Md. Maaz represented the petitioner, arguing that unlike in Mumbai, where IPL franchises paid for police deployment, the Delhi Police had not charged for security services since 2008.

Court’s Observation and Decision

A Division Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “The Union of India and Delhi Police had elected not to charge any fee from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the IPL matches held at Delhi. Consequently, there are no outstanding dues payable by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to either Union of India or Delhi Police. The decision of the Union of India or Delhi Police to not charge Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the security provided during IPL matches is a policy decision which does not require any interference from this Court in the present PIL.”

References to Similar Cases

The petitioner referenced similar cases from the Bombay and Rajasthan High Courts, where IPL franchises were required to pay for police deployment. Specifically, the petitioner mentioned that the Mumbai Indians IPL franchise had paid for security services in 2017, as confirmed by a communication from Indiawin Sports Private Limited. Additionally, the Rajasthan High Court had taken an adverse view on the non-payment of dues by IPL organizers for matches held in Jaipur.

Conclusion

The court concluded that there was no merit in the petitioner’s argument that there were notional amounts due from BCCI and Delhi Capitals for past IPL matches. The Bench reiterated that the decision not to charge for security was a policy matter and did not warrant judicial interference. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition.(Dubai7 realmoneygame)