BCCI Not A 'Public Authority', Not Subject To RTI Act: Central Information Commission

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the transparency law.Information Commissioner P R Ramesh passed the order while dismissing a second appeal filed by Delhi resident Geeta Rani, who had sought information regarding the legal basis under which the BCCI represents India in international cricket and selects players for the national team.The appellant had originally filed an RTI application in 2017 before the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports seeking details including the authority under which BCCI selects players for India, why governments provide infrastructure and security for cricket events, and whether any government authority exercises legal control over the BCCI. The Ministry responded that the information was not available with it and said the RTI application could not be transferred to the BCCI as it had not declared itself a public authority under the RTI Act.The matter had previously taken a different turn in 2018 when the CIC, under then Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu, held that the BCCI was a public authority and directed it to appoint Central Public Information Officers and comply with proactive disclosure obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act. However, the BCCI challenged that decision before the Madras High Court, which in September 2025 remanded the matter to the CIC for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar.Reconsidering the issue, the CIC held that the BCCI does not satisfy the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.The Commission reasoned that the BCCI was neither established by or under the Constitution, nor created by a parliamentary or state law, nor constituted through a government notification or order. It observed that the BCCI is merely a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, and that registration under a statute does not amount to being established by statute.The Commission relied on Supreme Court judgments including Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v. State of Kerala, Dalco Engineering Pvt Ltd v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye, and Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union of India to conclude that mere regulatory oversight or public importance does not convert a private entity into a public authority under the RTI framework.Rejecting the argument that the BCCI is under government control, the Commission held that the degree of control required under Section 2(h) must be “substantial” and not merely supervisory or regulatory.“It is pertinent to mention that there is no representation of the Government or any statutory body in the BCCI. There exists no control of the Government over the functions, finance, administration, management and affairs of the BCCI,” the Commission said.On the issue of funding, the CIC found that the BCCI is financially self-sustaining through media rights, sponsorships, ticket sales and other commercial activities, and does not depend on government financing for its functioning.The Commission also held that incidental benefits such as tax exemptions or access to infrastructure do not amount to “substantial financing” under the RTI Act unless the entity's existence depends on such support.Addressing the contention that the BCCI performs public functions such as selecting the Indian cricket team and regulating the sport nationally, the CIC said this factor alone is legally insufficient.“While this may be factually accurate, it is legally irrelevant for the purposes of Section 2(h). The RTI Act does not include 'public function' as a criterion for determining a public authority,” the Commission observed.The Commission further noted that although the Supreme Court in the 2016 Cricket Association of Bihar judgment had recognised the public character of BCCI's functions and subjected it to judicial scrutiny, it had not declared the BCCI to be a public authority under the RTI Act. Instead, any such move would require legislative intervention, the CIC said.Referring to the recently enacted National Sports Governance Act, 2025, the CIC noted that the law extends RTI obligations to recognised sports organisations receiving government grants, but held that since the BCCI does not receive such financial assistance, it does not fall within that statutory framework either.Concluding that the appellant had failed to establish that the BCCI is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government, the Commission dismissed the appeal.In an extended obiter, the Commission also cautioned against assuming that increased governmental supervision would necessarily improve transparency or fairness in institutions like the BCCI, noting the unique commercial and economic ecosystem surrounding Indian cricket.Click...

BCCI Not A 'Public Authority', Not Subject To RTI Act: Central Information Commission

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

BCCI Not A 'Public Authority', Not Subject To RTI Act: Central Information Commission

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers