BCCI one of the richest cricket associations, why reduce IPL police protection fee? Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Thursday sharply criticised Maharashtra’s decision to retroactively reduce police protection fees for Indian Premier League (IPL) T20 cricket matches [Anil Galgali v. State of Maharashtra]..Chief Justice DK Upadhyay pointed out that the State has been less gracious when it comes to the price of basic public utilities such as water supply. “What is this, madam? You keep increasing water charges for the public, even for slum dwellers ... but reduce these fees ... BCCI is one of the richest cricket associations globally. That’s how they become rich," the Chief Justice remarked, while addressing the State's government pleader. .A Bench of Chief Justice Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar was hearing on a Public Interest Litigation filed by Right to Information (RTI) activist Anil Galgali. He had challenged the State’s decision to lower the protection charges and waive arrears for police services provided to IPL T20 matches retrospectively from 2011. The petition revealed that the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) still owes ₹14.82 crores for police protection during IPL matches held at Wankhede and Brabourne stadiums between 2013 and 2018.The State government’s circular, issued on June 26, 2023, had reduced the security charges from ₹25 lakh to ₹10 lakh, with retrospective effect. .The Court noted that the State’s fee structure had undergone several revisions since 2017. In 2017, the charges were set at ₹66 lakh for T20 and ODI matches in Mumbai, and ₹44 lakh in Nagpur/Pune. For test matches, the fees were ₹55 lakh in Mumbai and ₹40 lakh in Nagpur/Pune.A subsequent Government Resolution (GR) dated November 12, 2018, increased the charges to ₹75 lakh for T20 and ODI matches in Mumbai, and ₹50 lakh in Nagpur/Pune. Test match fees were adjusted to ₹60 lakh in Mumbai and ₹40 lakh in Nagpur/Pune. However, the 2023 circular drastically reduced these fees to ₹10 lakh retroactively, a move that was questioned in Court.The Court has now directed the State to file detailed affidavits justifying both the reduction in protection charges and the waiver of arrears.The Bench specifically called for a comprehensive affidavit from the Additional Chief Secretary or another senior officer, detailing the State’s efforts to recover the dues since 2011 and the rationale behind waiving the liability. The Court will hear the matter next on October 7