A Public Interest Litigation seeking to bar Bangladesh from international cricket was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on Wednesday. The plea had sought the ban in response to reports of violence targeting the Hindu minority in the neighboring nation. A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia heard the case. They expressed strong doubts about whether the petition was maintainable.

The judges noted that the requested relief involves foreign policy and international relations. These matters belong entirely to the executive branch of government. From the start, the Bench questioned the purpose of the petition. They remarked that courts cannot make policy decisions about foreign nations. Furthermore, the court cannot conduct inquiries outside of Indian jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice noted that Article 226 has specific limits. This constitutional power cannot be extended to foreign governments. It also does not apply to international sports bodies. Furthermore, Indian courts cannot issue these orders to cricket boards of other nations.

The Court pointed out that the petitioner wanted orders against the International Cricket Council (ICC). The petition also targeted the cricket boards of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. However, Indian courts have no legal authority over these foreign entities.

The Bench warned the petitioner that this case misused the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) system. They cautioned that “heavy costs” (fines) could be imposed. This is because the petition was seen as a waste of the court’s time.

The Chief Justice stressed that a PIL cannot be based on imagination or personal feelings. It must have a solid legal foundation.

The Court also refused to consider a Pakistani court judgment cited by the petitioner. The Bench noted that Indian courts do not follow Pakistani legal precedents. Because the judges repeatedly questioned the case’s legal standing, the petitioner asked to withdraw the PIL.

The Chief Justice allowed the withdrawal but gave the petitioner a piece of advice. He urged them to focus on more constructive work. The Court noted that such petitions lack legal standing and create an unnecessary burden.

The final ruling was brief: “Since the petition is not maintainable, the petitioner asks to withdraw it. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”