CHENNAI: The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) coming under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has taken another twist.
On Monday, the Central Information Commission (CIC) reversed its own decision of 2018 and ruled that BCCI is not a public authority and should not come under the Act. The Information Commissioner, PR Ramesh, ruled in favour of the BCCI and said that "the BCCI is neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government".
Hence, Ramesh said in his order, "the BCCI cannot be classified as a “Public Authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and the provisions of the Act are therefore inapplicable to it in the facts and circumstances of the present case".
Though the BCCI does not take funds from the government but it does get income tax exemptions and some of the state associations use facilities or land of the government on lease. But the CIC said: "Such (Income tax) exemption was granted with a view to fulfil its objectives which is charitable in nature i.e. to promote sports of cricket." It also said that "Incidental benefits such as tax exemptions or access to infrastructure do not qualify unless the entity is dependent on them for survival." The order also delved into the Supreme Court order in the BCCI vs Cricket Association of Bihar where the court had spoken about its jurisdiction since it discharges 'public function'.
"The directions issued by this Court proceeded on a clear finding recorded by this Court that even when BCCI is not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court since it discharges public functions," said the SC order.
However, the commissioner said that those directions/guidelines were governance-oriented and regulatory in nature. And Lodha Committee recommendations that it should come under RTI too have been dismissed. The order said certain committee reports, such as those of the Lodha Committee and the Law Commission had recommended greater transparency and suggested bringing the BCCI within the ambit of the RTI. Lodha reforms were in place to bring more accountability in the functioning of the BCCI. But the CIC said: "... these reports are advisory in nature and do not have binding force." It needs to be seen if all recommendations made by the SC appointed Lodha commission can be open to interpretation. Or challenged in court.
The favourable order for the BCCI also has to do with the new Sports Governance Act, 2025 wherein it made clear that only sports bodies that get funding from the government can be under RTI Act. And BCCI doesn't take funds from the sports ministry. Even the CIC order says so.
The 2018 order was charted by then information commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu, who considered BCCI to be a public authority. He said that the BCCI should designate central public information officers and other relevant officials mandated under RTI Act. The BCCI had challenged this in Madras High Court and the court directed the CIC to pass appropriate orders in terms of guidelines of SC in the case between BCCI vs CAB. The BCCI had argued in HC that neither the Central Government, nor the State Government brought the petitioner under the ambit of the RTI.
According to the 2018 Acharyulu order: "... considering the substantive issues concerning the nature and functioning of BССІ, based on observations of the Honorable Supreme Court and recommendations of the Law Commission of India, hereby holds the BCCI as the public authority under RTI Act..." In 2018, the BCCI was run by the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (COA) and CK Khanna was the interim president. The elections were held in 2019 under the new constitution based on Lodha reforms.
The new order would cover the state associations as well. With this, another transparency tool in BCCI will be removed. It needs to be seen if any national cricket body can be eligible to select an India team or use the word India. And cricket features in the Olympics.
EXPLAINED RTI ACT
Section 2(h):
“Public authority” means any authority or body or institution of selfgovernment established or constituted—
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government,
and includes—
(i) any body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly
by funds provided by the appropriate Government.
