Introduction:
The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling concerning the intersection of sports policy and constitutional rights, recently declined to grant interim relief to a group of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) who had challenged the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) resolution barring them from participating in domestic cricket tournaments. The case, Kavin Kartik & Others v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (Writ Petition (L) No. 22903 of 2024, order dated 26 September 2025), was heard by a division bench comprising Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna. The petitioners, a group of young aspiring cricketers holding OCI cards, argued that the BCCI’s decision effectively excluded them from pursuing competitive cricket in India, thereby curtailing their aspirations and fundamental rights. The BCCI, on the other hand, defended its resolution on the grounds of policy, arguing that domestic cricket serves as the feeder to the national team and hence must logically remain restricted to Indian passport holders. After hearing both sides, the Court refused to interfere at the interim stage, stressing that no prima facie case of manifest arbitrariness had been made out and that allowing interim relief would effectively amount to granting the final relief itself.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Kunal Cheema and Advocate Datta Mane, argued that the BCCI’s resolution dated December 18, 2023, requiring all players in domestic tournaments to hold Indian passports was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of their constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21. They emphasized that prior to this sudden change, OCI cardholders had been allowed to participate in domestic cricket across various age-group levels, including state and zonal competitions. Many of them had invested significant time, resources, and effort in training with the hope of advancing through India’s cricketing system.
The petitioners contended that the abrupt disqualification caused irreparable harm to their careers, particularly since cricket is a time-sensitive sport where age and opportunity matter. For young athletes who had already been competing under the previous regime, the resolution was not just a change in rules but a retroactive setback that jeopardized their entire future. They relied on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, arguing that the BCCI’s past conduct of permitting their participation created a reasonable expectation that their career pathways would not be abruptly blocked.
Citing constitutional principles, the petitioners submitted that exclusion based solely on passport status amounted to discrimination under Article 14. They drew analogies from judgments where courts had held that OCI cardholders could not be arbitrarily excluded from educational opportunities, such as admissions under NEET, without a sound rationale. They also invoked Article 21, arguing that the right to life includes the right to pursue one’s chosen profession or vocation, and in their case, cricket was not merely a pastime but a serious career aspiration.
The petitioners further highlighted that cricket is a global sport, and many countries allow players with varying citizenship or residency statuses to participate in domestic competitions. They argued that the BCCI, as a body performing public functions and having a monopolistic hold over cricket in India, could not adopt exclusionary practices without justification. Finally, they stressed that the balance of convenience was in their favor since the denial of participation in the ongoing season would irreversibly affect their careers, while permitting them to play would not cause irreparable harm to Indian nationals as alleged.
Arguments of the Respondent (BCCI):
The BCCI, represented by Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf along with a team of advocates from Argus Partners, robustly defended its resolution as a well-considered policy decision. The Board argued that domestic cricket in India is not merely recreational but forms the foundational feeder system for national team selection. Since only Indian citizens are eligible to represent the country internationally, it was logical and consistent that only Indian passport holders be permitted to participate in domestic tournaments.
The BCCI emphasized that the petitioners were essentially seeking parity with Indian nationals, which could not be granted in the absence of citizenship. Allowing OCI cardholders to occupy slots in domestic teams would necessarily reduce opportunities for Indian nationals, who alone are eligible to represent India at the international stage. The Board argued that cricketing opportunities are finite, and permitting OCIs would come “at the cost of Indian nationals,” a consequence the Board was not willing to accept.
The BCCI further submitted that its resolution was a matter of policy falling within its exclusive domain. Courts, it argued, have consistently maintained that sporting bodies enjoy autonomy in policy decisions unless such policies are patently arbitrary or unconstitutional. In this case, there was no such arbitrariness; rather, the policy was rationally connected to its objective of nurturing Indian talent for national representation.
On the issue of legitimate expectation raised by the petitioners, the BCCI argued that no such expectation could override a valid policy change. The Board also emphasized that interim relief in the form of permitting participation would virtually amount to granting the final relief, rendering the main petition infructuous. Therefore, judicial discipline warranted refusing such an extraordinary order at the interim stage.
The Court’s Judgment:
After considering the submissions of both sides, the division bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna declined to grant interim relief to the petitioners. The Court noted that the petitioners had failed to establish a case of manifest arbitrariness, which was the threshold required for an interim mandatory injunction. The bench observed that the matter involved balancing the rights and aspirations of OCI cardholders with the legitimate expectations of Indian nationals who compete for limited slots in domestic tournaments.
The Court held that irreparable prejudice could not be assessed solely from the perspective of the petitioners. “Because allowing the Petitioners to participate in domestic tournaments would, to some extent, be at a cost of the Indian nationals, who would then proportionately not find a place in the team,” the bench observed. The Court also stressed that interim relief in this case would practically dispose of the main petition, which was impermissible.
At the same time, the Court adopted a humane approach by recognizing the aspirations of young cricketers. It permitted the petitioners to make a representation to the BCCI for prospective relief, directing the Board to consider their representation expeditiously. The bench observed, “The BCCI must endeavour to take an expeditious decision on such representation because ultimately, they are dealing with the hopes and aspirations of young children, who we presume have been working hard to excel in cricket. The BCCI may consider whether any relief could be provided to these children, given the circumstances in which they are placed.”
By striking this balance, the Court refused to interfere with the policy at the interim stage while leaving the door open for the BCCI to independently explore solutions that might accommodate OCI players in some capacity. The main petition, however, remains pending and is scheduled for admission on October 17, 2025.
Broader Legal and Social Implications:
This ruling raises important questions about the scope of constitutional protections for OCI cardholders and the autonomy of sports bodies like the BCCI. On the one hand, it reinforces the principle that sporting authorities have the discretion to frame eligibility criteria based on citizenship, particularly when domestic tournaments are closely linked to national representation. On the other hand, it also reflects the human cost of such policies on young aspirants who, despite their OCI status, have spent years honing their skills in India’s cricketing ecosystem.
The judgment underscores the judicial approach of balancing autonomy of sporting bodies with constitutional scrutiny. Courts are reluctant to interfere with sports policy unless manifest arbitrariness is demonstrated. However, by urging the BCCI to consider the plight of young players, the Court highlighted the need for sensitivity in policymaking, especially when changes disrupt settled expectations.