Moneylife: Pune: Thursday, July 12, 2018.
The Board of
Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), big brother of the sport in the country is
still shying away from coming under the ambit of Right to Information (Act)
despite several orders, its younger brother, Delhi District Cricket Association
(DDCA) went ahead and had appointed a Public Information Officer (PIO) to
respond to queries under the Act.
In its 10
July 2018 decision, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has asked BCCI and
the Ministry of Youth and Sports Affairs, to explain why it should not declare
“BCCI as a public authority in view of various judicial pronouncements and the
Law Commission’s recommendation in its 275th Report.”
In a press
release issued recently, the DDCA said it already begun to accept applications
under the Right to Information Act, since 25 June 2018. It states, “Please
check the website www.ddca.in for further details and the process of
application. The public information officer is Mr Pradeep Banerjee; First Appellate Authority Chief Executive
Officer (when appointed) and; Second Appellate Authority President of the
Executive Committee/Administrator.”
The press
release further states that the DDCA declares itself public authority under the
RTI Act, “as the Law Commission has recommended that BCCI should be subject to
the Right to Information Act since all other National and State sports
federations are amenable to the Right to Information Act.”
“In keeping
with this recommendation of the Law Commission and various judicial dicta, this
State Association should be transparent and accessible to the public. The DDCA
is a company and is bound by the provisions of the Companies Act and as such
has to make accessible various important documents such as the minutes book of
the company, and balance sheets. The Lodha reforms and judgements of the
Supreme Court and High Court of Delhi have sought to make cricket bodies like
the DDCA accountable and RTI is a step towards that objective,” the release
says.
In sharp
contrast, BCCI, the father of all cricket bodies in India has once again denied
information. In December 2017, one Geeta Rani sought information under RTI from
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, on the provision or guidelines under
which the BCCI has been representing India and selecting players for the
country; whether the players selected by BCCI are playing for India or BCCI;
and how BCCI (a private association) can represent our country in the national
and international cricket tournament.
The CPIO of
the Ministry replied that the information is not available with him as BCCI has
not been declared as a public authority and so he could not transfer the RTI
application to BCCI. RTI applicant Geeta then filed a first appeal but she got
the same reply, so a second appeal was filed with the CIC.
During the
CIC hearing on 10 July 2018, Arun Kumar Singh, Under Secretary from the
Ministry submitted that the Law Commission’s declaration as public authority is
still under examination. CIC called for all documents pertaining to this
‘examination’.
During the
hearing, CIC Prof Sridhar Acharyulu observed that RTI applicant Geeta has
raised “a very important issue regarding the status of the cricket team
selected by BCCI. Her question whether it is ‘a Team India’ or ‘Team BCCI’
raises an issue of exclusive authorisation of BCCI to select a team for India.”
He pointed out that “the apex court and other High Courts have expressed many a
time that the BCCI performs a public function and it is straightaway related to
public activity because of which the BCCI should be accountable to the public
in general and in public interest.”
He further
stated in his order that, “there have been several doubts raised by the
Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, even after the
recommendation of the Law Commission as to whether the BCCI does come under the
purview of the RTI Act.”
Ordaining
that now it is the responsibility of the CIC “to put an end to this prolonged
uncertainty which makes the BCCI non-transparent and unaccountable without any
moral backing and legal reasoning,” and so in public interest, “the BCCI should
be made transparent, accountable and answerable under the Right to Information
Act, 2005.”
The CIC has
directed the authorized representative of BCCI to explain why the Commission
should not declare the BCCI as a public authority in view of various judicial
pronouncements and the Law Commission’s recommendation in its 275th report. The
CIC has also directed the CPIO of the Ministry of Youth and Sports Affairs to
present its case as to why BCCI should not be declared as a public authority.
‘’
The next CIC
hearing has been slated for 1 August 2018.
.JPG)
.JPG)
