Twelve junior cricketers holding Overseas Citizen of India status have brought a legal challenge before the Bombay High Court, contesting a rule introduced by the Board of Control for Cricket in India that ties tournament eligibility to possession of an Indian passport.
The petitions, lodged by twelve named individuals — among them Kavin Kartik, Avik Dixit, Ram Repala, Ameyamanasa Reddy Pamulapati, Ayaan Mohammed Ahmed, Vedant Pathak, Nirvetla Rishith Reddy, Kothapally Kritin Reddy, Kothapally Arnav Reddy, Ritesh Sai Eswar, Aryan Singh Sidhu, and Kudugunta Krithik Reddy — came before a two-judge bench on which Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi sat alongside Justice Advait Sethna.
During the hearing, the bench remarked that anyone wishing to represent India might look into pursuing Indian citizenship. The Central government, named as a party in the proceedings, had yet to place any formal response before the bench.
Notwithstanding the bench's indication that proceedings could be deferred, advocate Kunal Cheema — with advocate Datta Mane lending support — pressed the judges to take up the petitions for consideration. Cheema drew a distinction in his submission, contending that the athletes were requesting access only to domestic competition, not an immediate pathway onto India's international teams.
Competing in those tournaments, Cheema argued, would allow the petitioners to accumulate the track record needed to meet entry requirements for top-tier leagues such as the Indian Premier League. Prior to 2023, OCI cardholders faced no bar on taking part in such competitions, with the restriction coming into force only after the BCCI put the rule in place that year.
Counsel put forward the position that the petitioners — young cricketers who both study and reside in India — had cases warranting the court's attention.
During oral proceedings, Chief Justice Tripathi posed the question of whether other nations permit foreign nationals or overseas citizens to take part in domestic sport when home-grown competitors are available. The bench extended its line of questioning to cover government employment and civil service entry examinations, probing whether OCI cardholders would be eligible to compete for those positions.
The Chief Justice indicated that pushback from domestic stakeholders may have played a role in shaping the BCCI's stance. Cheema's position held that the rule placed an obstacle in front of the players' aspirations within the sport, and that aspiring to feature in the IPL would first require players to build a foundation through performances and results at the domestic level.
Arguing on the BCCI's behalf, senior advocate Dr Birendra Saraf put forward the position that the Citizenship Act bars OCI cardholders from playing for India at the international level. Among the points he raised was the federal government's stance that only Indian citizens are eligible to represent the country.
Saraf contended that domestic competitions run by the BCCI form the backbone of a pipeline designed to identify, develop, and bring through new playing talent. Pointing to competitions such as the Ranji Trophy, he noted that those who brought the petition retained the option of taking part in school and college fixtures, private academies, and any other tournaments falling outside the board's authority.
According to the board's stated position, players remained free to participate in cricket as a sport, yet no entitlement to earn income through BCCI-run competitions would be recognised. During the hearing, the Chief Justice acknowledged that those bringing the petition faced no bar to education or cricket, yet posed a question about their choice to seek entry into BCCI-administered competitions while holding off on acquiring Indian citizenship.
Saraf noted that the country's pool of homegrown talent was deep enough to draw from, and that players would need to arrive at a decision of their own. He further noted that citizenship would open the door for those players to be considered for inclusion by the BCCI.
At the November 25 hearing, Cheema indicated he intends to table international conventions before the court, advancing the position that children hold an inherent right to their citizenship and cannot be forced into relinquishing it. The bench, pointing out that no order had been issued compelling the petitioners to alter their citizenship, framed its remarks as one available avenue put forward in response to their appeal for access to BCCI tournaments.
Saraf went on to tell the court that a number of OCI cardholders had already submitted requests for Indian citizenship, with those requests currently moving through the review process. The bench asked all three parties — the BCCI, the Central government, and the petitioners — to submit updates on the standing of those pending applications at the following hearing.
