New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not fall within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, holding that the cricket body cannot be classified as a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the legislation.
In a significant order delivered in Geeta Rani v Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports & Anr., Information Commissioner PR Ramesh concluded that the BCCI functions as an autonomous private organisation governed by its own internal rules and not by any statutory framework.
“The BCCI is a private organization whose objects are to promote the game of cricket,” the Commission observed, adding that the board’s affairs are managed independently by its elected office-bearers without government participation or administrative control.
The ruling comes as a setback to long-standing efforts aimed at bringing India’s wealthiest sports body under the transparency framework of the RTI Act.
Why CIC Rejected RTI Coverage
The Commission examined whether the BCCI satisfied the conditions laid down under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines a public authority as a body established by law or one that is owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government.
According to the CIC, the BCCI failed all three tests.
While the board is registered as a society, the Commission clarified that mere registration under a statute does not convert a private entity into a statutory authority. It stressed that the organisation was neither created by Parliament nor established through any government notification.
The order also rejected arguments that regulatory supervision over cricket amounted to government control.
“The working committee elected from amongst its members controls the entire affairs and management of the BCCI,” the CIC noted, emphasising that there is no representation from the government or any statutory authority within the board’s structure.
No ‘Substantial Financing’ by Government
The Commission further held that the BCCI cannot be treated as substantially financed by the State.
Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v State of Kerala and Zee Telefilms Ltd v Union of India, the CIC said substantial financing must involve deep financial dependence critical to an organisation’s survival.
In BCCI’s case, the Commission found the opposite.
It recorded that the board generates enormous revenues independently through broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals, tournaments, and other commercial operations. Tax exemptions or benefits available under general laws, it said, do not amount to government funding under the RTI framework.
Monopoly Over Cricket Not Relevant Under RTI
One of the key arguments before the Commission was that the BCCI performs public duties by selecting the Indian national cricket team and representing the country in international cricket.
The CIC, however, dismissed this contention, stating that the RTI Act does not use “public function” as a benchmark for determining whether an entity qualifies as a public authority.
“While the BCCI may perform public functions and enjoy a monopoly over cricket in India, that is legally irrelevant for the purposes of Section 2(h),” the Commission stated.
Background: 2018 CIC Order Had Declared BCCI a Public Authority
The latest ruling effectively overturns the trajectory set in 2018, when then Central Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu had declared the BCCI a public authority under the RTI Act.
That earlier order had directed the board to appoint Public Information Officers and establish a mechanism to process RTI applications.
The BCCI subsequently challenged the decision before the Madras High Court, arguing that it was an autonomous private society with no substantial government funding or control.
The High Court did not decide the issue on merits but sent the matter back to the CIC for fresh consideration, eventually leading to Monday’s ruling.
CIC Notes BCCI’s Financial Transformation
In broader observations on the structure of modern cricket administration, the Commission remarked that the BCCI has evolved into one of the world’s most financially powerful sports institutions.
It noted that unlike many sports federations dependent on public funds, the Indian cricket board operates as a market-driven entity with revenues running into tens of thousands of crores and significant financial reserves.
The Commission ultimately dismissed the appeal seeking RTI access to BCCI-related information.
The BCCI was represented by advocates Aditya Mehta, Shivani Garg, Agneya Gopinath, Deeksha Dev Singh, Biswa Patnaik, Melinda Colaco, and Prakhar Maheshwari.
