The Delhi High Court has rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a directive for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Delhi Capitals to compensate the Delhi Police for providing security during the Indian Premier League (IPL) matches.
The petitioner, claiming to be a social activist, argued that the issue of payment for police deployment was addressed by the respective high courts for IPL matches held in Mumbai and Jaipur.
However, the bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora, noted that the Centre and the Delhi Police have decided not to levy any charges for the IPL matches conducted in the national capital, considering it a policy decision beyond the court’s purview.
The bench stated, “We find no justification in the petitioner’s argument that there is an imaginary sum owed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the Union of India and/or Delhi Police for previous matches until 2022. Consequently, the current petition is dismissed.”
Court’s Clarification and Future Prospects
Nonetheless, the court clarified that its ruling should not be interpreted as preventing the Delhi Police from seeking fees for past or future obligations, should they choose to do so.
The petitioner asserted that the Delhi Police had no grounds to waive charges for security provided during IPL matches. According to the petitioner, IPL matches have been held in Delhi since 2008, and if fees were collected for all the matches held to date, a significant amount would be owed.
The Centre’s counsel countered this by stating that there was no outstanding amount owed by the BCCI and Delhi Capitals to the Delhi Police as no fee agreement had been negotiated for security services during IPL matches.
Maharashtra & Rajasthan
The court highlighted previous instances where the Maharashtra and Rajasthan Police had negotiated fees for providing security during IPL matches in Mumbai and Jaipur, respectively. It noted that a PIL was filed in the Bombay High Court over alleged non-payment, which was resolved after payment was made.
Similarly, the Rajasthan High Court addressed issues of default in payment by sponsors and organizers of IPL matches for services rendered by the Rajasthan Police. However, the Delhi High Court emphasized that the Union of India and the Delhi Police had chosen not to charge any fees from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for IPL matches held in Delhi, thus negating any outstanding dues to either the Union of India or the Delhi Police.
The court concluded, “We are of the opinion that no directions, as sought in the present petition, are tenable.”
