Why in News?

• The Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the Act.
• The decision revisits a long-standing debate over transparency, accountability, and the legal status of sports bodies performing public functions.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Legal Framework Behind the Dispute
• Earlier Recommendations for Bringing BCCI Under RTI
• Earlier CIC Position and Judicial Developments
• What the Latest CIC Order Held?
• SC Judgments Shaping the Issue
• National Sports Governance Act, 2025
• Implications of the CIC Decision

Legal Framework Behind the Dispute:

• RTI Act and definition of “public authority”: Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines a public authority as a body -
  • Established by the Constitution, parliamentary or state laws, or government notification;
  • Owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government;
  • Including NGOs substantially funded through public money.
• The BCCI argued that it is -
  • A private autonomous body;
  • Registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975;
  • Neither created by statute nor substantially financed by the government.
• Article 12 and the concept of “State”:
  • It includes governments and authorities under governmental control.
  • Courts have expanded this interpretation in some cases involving bodies performing public functions.
  • However, the BCCI maintained that despite regulating cricket in India, it is not “State” because there is no deep and pervasive governmental control over its affairs.

Earlier Recommendations for Bringing BCCI Under RTI:

• Justice Lodha committee recommendations:
  • The committee criticised the BCCI’s opaque functioning as a “closed-door and backroom affair”.
  • It recommended bringing the BCCI within the RTI framework to enhance transparency and accountability.
• Law Commission’s 275th Report (2018):
  • It also recommended that sports bodies performing public functions should come under RTI because they exercise “state-like powers”; BCCI virtually functions as a National Sports Federation.
  • Despite these recommendations, Parliament did not enact any law to include the BCCI under RTI.

Earlier CIC Position and Judicial Developments:

• 2018 CIC order: The BCCI qualified as a public authority and directed it to appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs); create an RTI compliance mechanism.
• Madras High Court (HC) intervention: The BCCI challenged the order before the Madras HC, which remanded the matter back to the CIC for reconsideration in light of SC rulings. The recent SC order emerged from this reconsideration.

What the Latest CIC Order Held?

• Registration under a statute does not make an entity public:
  • The CIC clarified that the BCCI is merely registered under a statute; it was not created by legislation or government notification.
  • The Commission distinguished between the bodies created by law (e.g., SBI); and private entities later registered under a legal framework.
  • Thus, registration only grants legal recognition, not statutory status.
• No “substantial and pervasive” government control:
  • Relying on the SC judgment in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd case (2013), the CIC held that RTI applies only when government control is deep, substantial, and pervasive across administration, finance, and policy.
  • The Commission observed that the BCCI office-bearers are internally elected; no government nominees sit on its committees; government approval is unnecessary for its decisions.
  • Hence, ordinary regulatory supervision was held insufficient to convert it into a public authority.
• No substantial government financing:
  • The CIC interpreted “substantial financing” under Section 2(h)(d) as funding essential for an entity’s survival.
  • It rejected claims that tax exemptions, police deployment, and use of public stadiums amount to substantial government financing.
  • The Commission emphasised that the BCCI generates massive independent revenues through media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting deals, and ticket sales.

SC Judgments Shaping the Issue:

• Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005):
  • The BCCI is not “State” under Article 12 because there is no government shareholding; no substantial financial assistance exists; government control is not deep or pervasive.
  • The CIC heavily relied on this reasoning.
• BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2016):
  • Following IPL spot-fixing controversies, the SC imposed major governance reforms through the Lodha Committee recommendations, including:
    • One-state-one-vote principle,
    • Tenure limits,
    • Conflict-of-interest norms.
  • The Court also clarified that even if BCCI is not “State” under Article 12, it can still be subject to judicial review under Article 226 because it performs public functions.
  • Thus, a body may remain outside RTI yet still be answerable before HCs for arbitrary or unfair actions.

National Sports Governance Act, 2025:

• Section 14(2) of the Act provides that sports bodies will be treated as public authorities only regarding the utilisation of government grants or financial assistance.
• Since the BCCI receives no such grants, the law effectively keeps it outside the RTI regime.

Implications of the CIC Decision:

• Transparency concerns: Excluding the BCCI from RTI limits public access to information relating to the team selection processes, governance decisions, etc.
• Accountability gap: The decision highlights a legal paradox - the BCCI performs significant public functions and regulates cricket nationally, yet it remains outside direct transparency obligations under RTI.
• Distinction between public function and public authority:
  • Performing public functions does not automatically make an entity a “public authority” under RTI;
  • Government ownership, financing, or pervasive control remains the determining test.