GUWAHATI: The Central Information Commission (CIC) on Monday, May 18, ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not qualify as a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and therefore is not covered under its disclosure framework.
ALSO READ: NorthEast United FC Aims To End Disappointing ISL Season On A High Note Against Mohammedan FC
Delivering the order, Information Commissioner P R Ramesh of the Central Information Commission held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India is a private autonomous society and is neither created by the Constitution nor established under any parliamentary or state legislation.
The ruling came on a second appeal filed by Delhi resident Geeta Rani, who had sought information in 2017 regarding the legal authority under which BCCI selects players for the Indian cricket team and represents India in international cricket. Her initial RTI application was filed before the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports after she did not receive satisfactory information.
The CIC observed that BCCI does not meet the criteria laid down under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines a public authority as a body owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government. It noted that the organisation functions through its elected representatives, with no government participation in its governance, administration, or decision-making.
On financial aspects, the Commission said the BCCI is self-sustaining, generating revenue through media rights, sponsorships, ticket sales, and other commercial activities. It added that indirect benefits such as tax exemptions or regulatory advantages cannot be treated as “substantial financing” by the government.
The Commission also rejected the contention that the BCCI should be brought under the RTI Act due to its public functions, including selection of the Indian cricket team and regulation of cricket in the country, stating that performing public functions is not a statutory criterion under Section 2(h) of the Act.
Citing Supreme Court judgments, including Zee Telefilms Ltd v Union of India and Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v State of Kerala, the CIC reiterated that only bodies established by law or substantially controlled or financed by the government fall within the RTI regime.
The matter had a history of conflicting rulings, including a 2018 CIC decision that had earlier treated BCCI as a public authority under RTI. That ruling was later challenged and remanded for fresh consideration, leading to the present order.
The Commission ultimately dismissed the second appeal, concluding that the statutory requirements under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act are not met in BCCI’s case.