The Central Information Commission (CIC) has held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not qualify as a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005, holding that mere regulatory oversight by the government is insufficient to bring a private body within the ambit of the transparency law.
The ruling came in a second appeal filed by Appellant, who had sought information regarding the legal basis on which BCCI represents India in cricket and selects players for national and international tournaments. The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports had informed the applicant that the requested information was not available with it and that the RTI application could not be transferred to BCCI, as BCCI had not been declared a public authority under the Act.
The matter assumed significance because, in 2018, the CIC had previously held BCCI to be a public authority and directed it to appoint RTI officers and disclose information. However, that order was challenged before the Madras High Court, which remanded the matter for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s observations in Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535.
Reconsidering the issue, the Commission held that BCCI does not satisfy the statutory definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. It noted that BCCI is a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and was neither established by the Constitution, nor created through legislation, nor constituted by any government notification or order.
The Commission further held that governmental regulation of cricket administration does not amount to the kind of deep and pervasive control required under law. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Zee Telefilms and Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank, (2005) 4 SCC 649, it observed that mere supervision or regulatory oversight cannot transform an autonomous private body into a public authority.
On the issue of funding, the CIC found no evidence that BCCI is substantially financed by the government. It noted that BCCI is financially self-sustaining, generating revenue through broadcasting rights, sponsorships, ticket sales, and related commercial activities, and that general statutory exemptions or incidental benefits cannot be equated with substantial governmental financing.
Concluding that BCCI remains outside the RTI framework in the absence of legislative intervention or demonstrable governmental control, the Commission dismissed the appeal.
