'Cricketers Can Take Care Themselves' : Supreme Court Dismisses Advocate's Plea For Facilities At Mumbai Cricket Grounds

The petitioner challenged the Bombay High Court order refusing to grant relief in his PIL. The PIL sought directions to the Mumbai Cricket Association and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to provide basic amenities such as clean drinking water and toilets for players, especially women, during practice matches and unofficial games held on public grounds.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih concurred with the HC's reasoning that there is no reason why the players cannot seek redressal of their grievance on their own.

“High Court is absolutely right in not entertaining the PIL at the instance of present petitioner. We concur with the view taken by the High Court”, the Court held.

Dismissing the PIL, Justice Oka remarked, "What kind of PIL is this? Cricketers can take care themselves. If they are not provided toilets, they will take care of it. Why should the advocates be bothered about it?"

The petitioner, appearing in person, explained that he had observed difficulties on the grounds, which prompted him to file the PIL. However, Justice Oka questioned the petitioner asking, “Are you predominantly a lawyer or predominantly a cricketer? If you are an advocate, then cricketers are more than capable of addressing this issue themselves. If you say you are a cricketer, then this is not a PIL. This is personal interest”

The Bombay High Court had last year refused to grant relief in this matter. In its order, the High Court noted that the petitioner, being a practicing advocate, did not provide any reason as to why the players themselves could not seek redressal of their grievances. The High Court had also made it clear that while the petition could be treated as a suggestion to the concerned authorities, it did not warrant judicial intervention.

The High Court's order read: “There is no reason given why this class, the players, cannot seek redressal of their grievance on their own. In these circumstances, the appropriate course of action would be to call upon Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as suggestions made and if it is feasible for them to do so, proceed to implement the same. We make it clear that our order is not to be construed as direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant relief as sought for by the Petitioner but only as suggestions.”

The HC had disposed of the PIL without issuing any directions to the cricket authorities but clarified that if an aggrieved player raises the issue in the future, it could be considered on its own merits.

Case no. – Diary No. 24935/2024

Case Title – Rahul Rajendraprasad Tiwari v. Mumbai Cricket Association