Delhi Police Not Charging BCCI For Security Provided During IPL Matches A Policy Decision: Delhi HC Dismisses PIL
The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL against the BCCI and Delhi Capital regarding IPL security fees, noting that the Delhi Police's decision not to charge for security was a policy decision that did not require interference from the Court.
A social worker (petitioner) filed a PIL seeking court directions for the Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) and Delhi Capital to pay a "substantial amount" to the Delhi Police for security provided during the Indian Premier League (IPL) seasons.
A Division Bench 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.”
Advocate Ali Md. Maaz represented the petitioner, while Advocate Pratishtha Vij appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner contended that unlike in Mumbai, where the IPL franchise paid for police deployment, the Delhi Police had not charged for security services provided during IPL matches held in the Capital since 2008. The petitioner argued that given the IPL matches' tenure in Delhi since 2008 if the Delhi Police were to recover the fees for all matches held to date, it would be entitled to a “large sum.”
Referring to such similar cases from the Bombay and Rajasthan High Courts, where similar issues were addressed, resulting in the payment of dues to local police forces for security services during IPL matches. Despite acknowledging that the Delhi Police had not raised any invoices for these services, the petitioner insisted that there was no reason why Delhi Police should not charge for the security provided.
The Petitioner stated that in Mumbai, IPL franchisees paid for police deployment charges, a matter previously addressed by the Bombay High Court. Additionally, the Petitioner referenced a communication from Indiawin Sports Private Limited, which runs the Mumbai Indians IPL franchise, confirming payment to the Maharashtra Police for security services during 2017 matches.
Similarly, the Petitioner noted that the Rajasthan High Court had acknowledged non-payment of dues by sponsors and organisers of IPL matches to the Rajasthan Police for Jaipur matches, resulting in an adverse view.
The Court stated that the decision to not charge any security fee was a policy decision made by the Delhi Police and therefore, the same did not require any interference by the Court.
Therefore, the Bench found no merit in the submission of the Petitioner that there was a notional amount due and payable by BCCI and Delhi Capitals to the central government and/or Delhi Police for the past matches held until 2022.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Haider Ali v. Board of Control of Cricket in India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4556-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Ali Md. Maaz
Respondents: GP Chitvan Singhal; CGSC Ravi Prakash; Advocates Pratishtha Vij and Ali Khan
