The Supreme Court of India on Thursday dismissed a petition seeking a restrain public broadcaster Prasar Bharati from referring to the BCCI-run cricket side as “Team India” or the “Indian national cricket team”, terming the plea frivolous and a sheer waste of judicial time.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the Delhi High Court’s October 8 order dismissing the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Reepak Kansal.

Strongly criticising the petitioner, the bench observed that such litigation unnecessarily burdens the courts.

“You just start sitting at home and draft petitions. What is the problem in all of this? Don’t burden the court. The fact that exemplary cost was not saddled with has encouraged him to move this court,” the bench remarked.

Calling the plea a complete waste of judicial time, the court said the High Court should have imposed exemplary costs to discourage similar petitions in the future.

“High Court was unfair. Was there no exemplary cost imposed otherwise how to stop frivolous petitions like this in Supreme Court?” the bench said, adding that it was inclined to impose costs of ₹10 lakh but ultimately waived them after repeated requests from the petitioner’s counsel.

During the hearing, the bench questioned the very premise of the petition.

“This is sheer wastage of the court’s time and your time... What is this argument? Are you saying that the team does not represent India? The team which is going and playing everywhere, they are misrepresenting? Forget about the BCCI, if Doordarshan or any other authority projects it as Team India, is it not Team India?” the bench asked.

Justice Bagchi also underlined the institutional backing enjoyed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, noting the broader regulatory framework governing the board.

“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,” he observed.

The PIL had argued that the BCCI is a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and is neither recognised as a National Sports Federation nor a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. It contended that calling the BCCI-run team “Team India” or the “Indian national team” misleads the public in the absence of formal government sanction.

The petition further claimed that the use of national symbols during broadcasts could violate the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, and the Flag Code of India, 2002.

“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 petition stated.

While dismissing the PIL in October, the Delhi High Court had also sharply rebuked the petitioner. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had remarked:

“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?”

Chief Justice D. K. Upadhyaya had similarly termed the litigation pointless, questioning whether any national sports team is directly selected by government officials.

“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.”