'Why not take Indian citizenship?': High Court questions 12 OCI cricketers over challenge to BCCI’s passport mandate

Bombay High Court questioned 12 young Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholders who have challenged the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) over its rule mandating an Indian passport for domestic cricket tournaments.

Bombay High Court urges OCI cricketers to opt for Indian citizenship

Hearing a writ petition that challenges the BCCI's December 2023 resolution, a division bench of the High Court observed that with an abundance of talent competing across the country, young athletes seeking to play Indian domestic cricket and potentially represent the nation ought to make a clear choice regarding their nationality. The court pointedly asked the petitioners:

"Why don’t you take a citizenship of India? If you are so much desperate to represent India why don’t you become Indian citizen?"

ALSO READ: Sri Lanka legend joins forces with Yuvraj Singh, Sourav Ganguly as Delhi Capitals' fast bowling coach ahead of IPL 2027

Behind the BCCI's strict policy change

The legal dispute traces back to a policy directive passed by the BCCI in late 2023. Under the revised regulations, the cricket board declared that only holders of a valid Indian passport are eligible to participate in domestic tournaments organised under its umbrella, including prestigious competitions such as the Ranji Trophy, Vijay Hazare Trophy, and age-group national championships.

BCCI Eligibility Criteria: Domestic Tournaments vs. IPL

Historically, OCI cardholders, many of whom are children of Indian nationals born abroad, were permitted to play in domestic age-group and state-level tournaments under specific conditions. However, the BCCI tightened its rules to align domestic tournaments strictly as a scouting pipeline for the Indian national team, where full citizenship and an Indian passport are non-negotiable requirements under International Cricket Council (ICC) and Government of India sports codes.

The Petitioners' Case

The petition was filed on behalf of 12 minor cricketers, including young players like Kavin Kartik. Born abroad to parents of Indian origin, these young athletes acquired foreign passports by birth. They have since resided, studied, and trained in India for years, developing their skills entirely within the Indian cricket ecosystem.

Appearing for the young players, advocate Kunal Cheema raised several key arguments before the court:

Right to Development and Equality: The petitioners argued that preventing long-term resident children from competing in domestic sports impacts their development and career growth, violating principles of equality under Article 14.

Dependence on Parents: Counsel emphasized that as minors, the petitioners did not consciously choose their birth citizenship, and compelling them to abandon their foreign passports at a young age creates an unfair hurdle.

Arbitrary Disruption: The players argued that after devoting years to local academies and state age-group trials, the sudden enforcement of the passport mandate disrupted their athletic careers overnight.

The IPL Parallel: The petitioners pointed out that foreign players and OCI cardholders are allowed to participate in the Indian Premier League (IPL), making their exclusion from domestic cricket appear inconsistent.  

Court’s observations and Judicial perspective

The bench, however, drew a sharp distinction between commercial league cricket and official national domestic structures. Addressing the comparison to the IPL, the court noted that the IPL is a commercial, franchise-driven enterprise where players do not represent the Indian nation, whereas BCCI domestic tournaments serve as the direct pathway to donning the national jersey.

The High Court made several critical observations during the proceedings:

A Matter of Choice: The bench clarified that while it is not forcing anyone to alter their nationality, athletes aspiring to play in national-level domestic structures must decide where their sovereign allegiance lies.

Abundance of Native Talent: The court pointed out that India possesses a vast talent pool of native Indian citizens competing for limited spots in state and national teams. Granting domestic slots to non-citizens could deprive Indian passport holders of developmental opportunities.

Naturalization Pathway: Responding to arguments about pending applications, the court was informed by Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf (representing the BCCI) that several OCI players have already applied for Indian citizenship and that the BCCI would gladly welcome them once their naturalization is complete.

Statutory Framework: The legal battle touches upon the core statutory limits of the Overseas Citizenship of India framework under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

While Section 7A grants OCI cardholders lifelong entry, residency, and economic privileges comparable to Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), Section 7B explicitly curtails political and sovereign rights. Subsequent notifications by the Central Government have reiterated that representation of India in international sports remains reserved strictly for full Indian citizens holding an Indian passport.

The bench has directed the Central Government, the BCCI, and the petitioners to submit detailed affidavits updating the status of citizenship applications filed by the affected players. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on November 25, where international conventions regarding child rights and citizenship choice will be placed before the court.