On September 11, the Supreme Court declined the request for an urgent hearing of the public interest litigation petition (PIL) seeking cancellation of the September 14 Asia Cup match between India and Pakistan. This rejection effectively makes the PIL infructuous.
The PIL was filed by four law students at 2:51 PM on September 10, 2025. Before hearing, a Supreme Court matter goes through certain steps, including clearing of defects, verification, registration, and listing. The Supreme Court normally hears new matters on Mondays and Fridays. For a listing on September 12, the last working day before the match, the PIL should have been verified by September 8, much before the PIL was filed. As of September 11, the PIL remained pending for the clearing of defects.
The only way to get a listing was by obtaining a direction from the court. As the Chief Justice court was hearing a constitution bench matter, Petitioners’ counsel mentioned the PIL before Court No. 2 presided over by Justice JK Maheswari, seeking an urgent listing. Following is the conversation between the counsel and the bench:
Counsel: “The match is on Sunday. Please list it tomorrow,”
Bench: “Match is this Sunday? What can we do about that? Let it be. Match should go on.”
Counsel: “I may have a bad case but please get it listed”
Bench: “No, nothing.”
It now seems improbable that the matter could be heard before the match on September 14. By the time PIL clears the procedural hurdles, the game will have already been played, rendering the petition moot.
Who are the parties?
Petitioners
- Uravashi Jain
- Shreya Roy
- Ayushi Dwivedi
- Jahnavi Tomar
Respondents
- Union of India
- Board of Control for Cricket in India
What does the PIL say?
The PIL, filed by four law students, argues that holding the match in the wake of recent terror attacks, specifically the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, is inconsistent with national dignity and the sacrifices of the armed forces. The petitioners also seek directions for implementing the National Sports Governance Act, 2025.
The petition states:
Cricket between nations is meant to show harmony and friendship. But after the Phalagam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, when our people died and our soldiers risked everything, playing with Pakistan sent the opposite message that while our soldiers sacrificing their lives, we are celebrating sports with the same country sheltering terrorists…
Can courts interfere?
This PIL (under Article 32) has made BCCI the second respondent. In Zee Telefilms v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India had held (majority opinion) that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable against BCCI.
In the above view of the matter, the second respondent-[BCCI] cannot be held to be a State for the purpose of Article 12. Consequently, this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.
While courts in India have not directly stopped a cricket match from being played, they have issued orders that have had significant impacts on the administration of the sport, which in turn can affect how and when matches are organised. For example, in 2016, the Bombay High Court had directed that all Indian Premier League (IPL) matches scheduled in Maharashtra after April 30 be relocated outside the state. This decision stemmed from a PIL (under Article 226) highlighting the severe drought conditions in Maharashtra, where water usage for maintaining cricket pitches was deemed inappropriate amid widespread shortages.