BCCI assures Bombay High Court of paying security dues to police within 2 weeks

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on Friday said that it will settle Rs 1.70 crore owed to the Police Commissioner of Pimpri Chinchwad, Rs 3.30 crore to the Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner, and Rs 1.03 crore to the Mumbai Police Commissioner for providing security during cricket matches organised by the board. The payment is expected within two weeks from January 10.

In an affidavit filed in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the BCCI said, “We have no intention of depriving the police force of the amounts owed to them.” It further assured that it would clear disputed dues to other authorities for providing security for IPL matches “not later than 90 days of the reconciliation of the accounts with the concerned police authorities.”

The affidavit was filed in response to a PIL by activist Anil Galgali, who challenged a government decision to reduce fees for police protection. The court noted that the state government had applied the reduction retrospectively, significantly lowering the dues owed by cricket organisations to police departments.

Addressing the issue of stadium ownership, the BCCI clarified that it does not own any stadiums. “Most stadiums are owned by our members, such as the Mumbai Cricket Association, which owns Wankhede Stadium, or the Cricket Club of India, which owns Brabourne Stadium. Others, like the DY Patil Stadium in Navi Mumbai, are privately owned,” the affidavit stated.

The BCCI explained that security arrangements depend on the type of match. For IPL league matches, franchises are responsible for arrangements at their home grounds. For international matches, state cricket associations manage the security. The BCCI takes direct responsibility only for qualifiers, eliminators, IPL finals, Women’s Premier League matches, or centrally organised events, such as the 2022 IPL held during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The affidavit also addressed broader questions raised in the PIL about fees for police protection. “The question of how much the charges for police protection ought to be are matters of policy… whether they ought to be similar for all matches or calculated strictly based on the number of personnel employed. The choice of method is a policy decision,” the BCCI stated.

On Friday, the bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar took the affidavit on record and directed the petitioner’s lawyer, VT Dubey, to file a rejoinder, if any, within two weeks. The bench will hear the case again on February 11.

Tune In