New Delhi

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to bar Bangladesh from participating in international cricket tournaments over allegations of violence against the Hindu community in that country.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia questioned the maintainability of the petition, observing that the relief sought involved issues of foreign policy and international relations, which fall within the exclusive domain of the executive.

At the outset, the Bench remarked that constitutional courts cannot be called upon to take policy decisions concerning foreign nations or conduct inquiries beyond India’s territorial jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice noted that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not extend to foreign governments, international sporting bodies or cricket boards of other countries.

The Court also pointed out that the petitioner had sought directions against the International Cricket Council, as well as the Bangladesh and Sri Lanka Cricket Boards, over whom Indian courts have no jurisdiction.

Cautioning the petitioner, the Bench said such litigation amounted to a misuse of the PIL mechanism and warned that exemplary costs could be imposed for wasting judicial time.

During the hearing, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Board of Control for Cricket in India and highlighted that foreign cricket boards had been impleaded in the case.

The Bench repeatedly advised the petitioner, who identified himself as a law student, that courts cannot issue writs to foreign cricketing bodies or compel the Government of India to engage with another country in a particular manner.

The Chief Justice further observed that PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of conjecture or personal perceptions without a sound legal foundation. The Court also dismissed the petitioner’s reliance on a judgment of a Pakistani court, stating that Indian constitutional courts do not follow Pakistani jurisprudence.

In view of the sustained objections raised by the Bench, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea.

ALSO READ: Kabir Khan's film on the Taj Mahal turns into India's soft power

Allowing the request, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn and advised the petitioner to pursue more constructive legal work, noting that such petitions unnecessarily burden the judiciary.