How did BCCI resist RTI scrutiny?

BCCI claims that it is a private and autonomous body and therefore does not qualify as a “public authority” under Section 2(b). h) of the RTI Act. File | Photo credit: PTI

Story so far: The Central Information Commission (CIC) on May 18 ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not qualify as a “public body” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. As a result, the CIC ruled that the BCCI cannot be ordered to provide information under the Cricket Act, 2006 after an appeal from the ministry in Delhi18 was dismissed. Affairs and Sports said the requested information was not available in its records.

Also read | Bat for the Better: On BCCI and the RTI Act

What is the legal status?

BCCI claims that it is a private and autonomous body and therefore does not qualify as a “public authority” under Section 2(b). h) of the RTI Act. The provision defines “public authority” as “any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted” by the Constitution, laws made by Parliament or State Legislatures or by notification of the Government. It also includes entities that are “owned, controlled or substantially funded” by the government, including non-governmental organizations that receive significant public funding.

The cricket body argued that as an autonomous charitable society registered under the Tamil Nadu Companies Registration Act, 1975 (the 1975 Act), it did not fall within the purview of the “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. This article includes in its scope the Union and State Governments, Legislatures and “all local or other bodies” operating within the territory of India or under Government control.

What did professional bodies recommend before?

An earlier CIC Bench, headed by Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu, ruled in 2018 that the BCCI qualified as a public body under the RTI Act and ordered it to appoint public information officers and create a framework for RTI compliance. The order was challenged by the BCCI in the Madras High Court, which referred the matter to the CIC for a fresh hearing in light of the Supreme Court’s decision which held that the cricketing body was not covered by the RTI Act. Based on this re-evaluation, the CIC decision dated 18 May was adopted.

Earlier, the Justice RM Lodha Committee, set up by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms within the BCCI, described the functioning of the cricket body as a “closed-door, backroom affair” and called on Parliament to “seriously” consider bringing it under the RTI Act. The Law Commission also recommended in 2018 that sports bodies performing public functions be brought under the RTI regime. However, not a single recommendation was translated into law.

What does the latest CIC order say?

The CIC ruled that the BCCI, which is registered under the 1975 Act as a “private association of individuals”, cannot be considered a public body under the RTI Act. It found that the RTI regime did not apply to all entities “merely because they are registered under the Act”, distinguishing between entities created by law and entities created on private initiative and only later registered under the Act. He noted that the BCCI was created by the administrators of cricket and that registration under the 1975 Act only provided legal recognition and not statutory status.

The Commission also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005), which held that “mere supervision or regulation by the State is not sufficient to alter the private character of an organization”. In this judgment, the Supreme Court noted that although the BCCI performs important public functions in regulating cricket in India, it would not qualify as a “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution unless there was deep and pervasive governmental control over its affairs.

Regarding financing, the Commission noted that § 2 letter h) letter (d) of the RTI Act applies to entities that are “largely funded” by the government. However, he clarified that the term refers to financial assistance so significant that the entity’s survival would depend on it, and not to indirect benefits such as tax exemptions. The CIC noted that the exemptions relied upon by the BCCI are uniformly available to non-profit organizations fulfilling the prescribed conditions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It also pointed out that the BCCI generates huge revenue through media rights, sponsorships and broadcast deals.

What are the consequences?

Bringing BCCI under the RTI framework would enable citizens to search for information not only about its finances but also about its day-to-day functioning. Section 14(2) of the National Sports Governance Act 2025 states that a recognized sports organization would only be treated as a public authority “with regard to the use of government grants or financial assistance” it receives. By making government funding the determining criterion, this provision effectively excludes BCCI from the purview of the RTI Act.

Published – 24 May 2026 04:17 IST