The Bombay High Court on Thursday expressed strong displeasure over the Maharashtra government’s decision to cut police security charges for the Indian Premier League (IPL) T20 cricket matches. A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a PIL filed by Right to Information (RTI) activist Anil Galgali who had challenged the state government’s decision to cut police security charges for the IPL T20 matches since 2011 and waive off the outstanding charges.
According to a Bar and Bench report, Chief Justice DK Upadhyay said that the state government shows no leniency when it comes to the price of basic public amenities like water supply. Addressing the state government counsel, the Chief Justice remarked, “What is this Madam? You keep increasing the price of water for the public, without giving any leniency even to slum dwellers… BCCI is one of the richest cricket associations in the world. That’s how they have become rich.”
The petition revealed that the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) still owes Rs 14.82 crore for police security during IPL matches held at the Wankhede and Brabourne stadiums between 2013 and 2018. The state government circular issued on June 26, 2023, reduced the security fee from Rs 25 lakh to Rs 10 lakh.
The court noted that the state’s fee structure has undergone several amendments since 2017. In 2017, the fee for T20 and ODI matches was fixed at Rs 66 lakh in Mumbai and Rs 44 lakh in Nagpur/Pune. For Test matches, the fee was Rs 55 lakh in Mumbai and Rs 40 lakh in Nagpur/Pune.
A government resolution (GR) issued on November 12, 2018, increased the fees for T20 and ODI matches to Rs 75 lakh in Mumbai and Rs 50 lakh in Nagpur/Pune. The Test match fees were increased to Rs 60 lakh in Mumbai and Rs 40 lakh in Nagpur/Pune. However, the 2023 circular reduced these fees to Rs 10 lakh with retrospective effect, which was questioned in the court.
The court has now directed the state to file a detailed affidavit to justify the reduction in protection charges and waiver of dues. The bench has specifically sought a comprehensive affidavit from the additional chief secretary or any other senior official detailing the state’s efforts to recover dues since 2011 and the rationale behind waiving the dues. The court will next hear the matter on October 7.
