‘Cricketers can take care themselves’ – Supreme Court rejects PIL seeking toilet facilities for cricket stadiums in Mumbai

Supreme Court of India [Photo for representation purpose only.] (Photo Source: Twitter)

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India seeking toilet facilities in cricket stadiums has been rejected by the apex court. The petitioner had filed a PIL regarding improper toilet facilities in stadiums in Mumbai, however, the court found the petitioner had no locus (situated at the place where the concerned issue occurred), dismissing the plea. Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih comprised the division bench and queried the locus of the petitioner for filing a PIL in the matter.

“What kind of a PIL is this? if cricketers have problem they will come to us? Are you predominantly a cricketer or an advocate,” Justice Oka remarked as quoted by Bar and Bench.

“Look at photos you have attached. Your exact PIL is no where to be found. The High Court (referring to Bombay High Court) was right in dismissing your plea.”

Also Read: SC rules in BCCI’s favour, orders not to begin insolvency proceedings against BYJU’s

Prior to the matter reaching the SC’s domain, the Bombay High Court had withheld the PIL that sought the Mumbai Cricket Association and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for amenities. The PIL sought boards to comply with basic needs such as clean drinking water and toilets for players and women visiting grounds for matches.

“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.

Moreover, the High Court even stated that players can take care of themselves and if any players have qualms about their needs being denied, they can address their problems to the concerned administration on their own.

“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.”