BCCI not government body, not subject to RTI Act: Central Information Commission

The Central Information Commission (CIC) on Monday held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not covered by the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) as it does not fall within the definition of a 'public authority' under the Act [Geeta Rani v Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports & Anr.]

Information Commissioner PR Ramesh said that BCCI is a private organisation created to promote the game of cricket.

“BCCI is a private organization whose objects are to promote the game of cricket. Its functions are regulated and governed by its own Rules and Regulations independent of any statute and are only related to its members." the CIC ruled.

The verdict came in a plea seeking information on the functioning and affairs of the BCCI and whether such details could be accessed under the RTI framework at all, given that the body is not formally recognised as a public authority.

In 2018, Central Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu held that BCCI was a “public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act and therefore amenable to the RTI regime. The order directed the BCCI to designate Public Information Officers and create a mechanism for receiving RTI applications.

BCCI challenged it in before the Madras High Court, contending that it was a private autonomous society not substantially funded or controlled by the government and therefore outside the ambit of the RTI Act.

The High Court did not decide whether BCCI was covered by the RTI Act. Instead, it remitted the matter back to the CIC for a fresh examination.

In its order passed on Monday, the CIC explained that under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act (defines which bodies must disclose information), an organisation qualifies as a 'public authority' only if it is created by law or is owned, controlled, or substantially funded by the government.

Applying this test, the CIC found that the BCCI does not meet any of these conditions.

It noted that the BCCI is a society registered under law but not created by any statute or government order. It held that registration merely gives legal recognition to a private entity and does not make it a statutory body accountable under the Act.

It also detailed on what counts as “control” by the government, clarifying that it must be deep and pervasive, not just regulatory oversight.

“The working committee elected from amongst its members in accordance with its own rules, controls the entire affairs and management of the BCCI. It is pertinent to mention that there is no representation of the government or any statutory body of whatsoever nature by whatever form in the BCCI. There exists no control of the government over the functions, finance, administration, management and affairs of the BCCI. Thus, the status of public authority cannot be given to the BCCI,” observed the Commission.

The CIC further examined whether the BCCI could still fall under RTI as a body 'substantially financed' by the government.

Referring to Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v State of Kerala (2013) and Zee Telefilms Ltd v Union of India (2005), the Commission said such funding must be significant and essential for the organisation’s functioning.

In BCCI’s case, the CIC found no such dependence. It recorded that the board generates its own revenue through media rights, sponsorships, and commercial activities, and that tax exemptions or general benefits available under law cannot be treated as government funding.

Additionally, the CIC addressed the argument that the BCCI performs public functions by selecting the Indian team and representing the country internationally.

This argument was also rejected on the ground that the RTI Act does not treat 'public function' as a test for deciding whether an organisation must disclose information.

“Another commonly advanced argument is that the BCCI performs ‘public functions’ and enjoys a monopoly over cricket in India. While this may be factually accurate, it is legally irrelevant for the purposes of Section 2(h). The RTI Act does not include ‘public function’ as a criterion for determining a public authority,” said the Commission.

In a broader observation, the CIC cautioned against assuming that greater government control automatically ensures transparency or fairness.

“The evolution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India from a colonial-era administrative body into the financial epicentre of global cricket reflects one of the most significant transformations in contemporary sports economics. Unlike many national sports bodies that depend substantially on state support, the BCCI operates as a largely autonomous, market-driven entity, with revenues running into tens of thousands of crores and substantial financial reserves,” it observed.

With these findings, the CIC ultimately dismissed the appeal seeking information under the RTI Act, holding that the law does not apply to the BCCI in this case.

Advocates Aditya Mehta, Shivani Garg, Agneya Gopinath, Deeksha Dev Singh, Biswa Patnaik, Melinda Colaco and Prakhar Maheshwari represented the BCCI.

[Read Order]