While the Indian cricket team is presently in the news for all the wrong reasons—that is, for having faced a series of defeats—and although it is the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) which selects the Indian team, there is no way Indians can seek transparency from this, the world’s wealthiest cricket board.
Reason? A heavily researched and bold order by the central information commissioner, Prof Sridhar Acharyulu in 2018 brought the BCCI under the RTI Act and proclaimed that this sports body should be transparent in its working by immediately appointing central public information officers (CPIOs) and appellate authorities (AA).
However, the BCCI predictably sought legal intervention, challenging the CIC order in the Madras High Court on 1 October 2018 and was granted a stay in December 2018. And it remains so to date. Despite this adversely affecting the dissemination of information under the RTI Act, citizens continue to file RTI applications addressed to the CPIO of the ministry of youth affairs and sports.
At a second appeal hearing last fortnight on 16 October 2024, RTI applicant Prashant Dhasal was hopeful of getting the following information related to the selection process for the appointment of key posts in the BCCI:Provide a certified copy of record mentioning the comprehensive information about the criteria, qualifications and eligibility requirements considered for the appointment of the secretary, president and vice president of the BCCI.
Provide a certified copy of record mentioning details of the selection procedure, including the roles and responsibilities of the nominating committee or governing body responsible for the appointment of these positions.
Provide a certified copy of record mentioning information on the timeline, stages, and decision-making process involved in the selection and appointment of the secretary, president and vice president of the BCCI.
Provide a certified copy of record mentioning copies of any official documents, rules, or regulations that outline the guidelines and protocols followed by the BCCI for the appointment of key administrative positions within the organisation.
The CPIO replied, “No such information is available with the undersigned CPIO. BCCI is not recognised as NSF (National Sports Federation) by this ministry.” Thereafter, the FAA returned Mr Dhasal’s first appeal, stating that it reached him after the stipulated time of 30 days.
CIC Vinod Kumar Tiwari, in his order, narrated the status of the BCCI as a public authority under the RTI Act, as mentioned on the website of the ministry of youth affairs and sports. This ministry has curiously mentioned that it has not recognised BCCI as a public authority under the RTI Act as the former did not approach it to be under the NSF.
CIC Tiwari has included this information in his order, thus: “Ministry of youth affairs and sports (MYAS) vide its order dated 21 April 2010 declared recognised NSF as public authority under the RTI Act, 2005. As BCCI has never approached the ministry of youth affairs and sports for recognition as NSF, the ministry has not recognised BCCI as NSF.”
“However, the chief information commission (CIC) vide its order dated 1 October 2018 held the BCCI as the public authority under RTI Act, 2005 and directed the president, secretary and committee of administrators to designate deserving officers as central public information officers, central assistant public information officers and first appellate authorities and put in place a system of online and offline mechanisms to receive the applications for information under the RTI Act. MYAS was directed to take necessary steps to ensure the implementation of this order.
However, BCCI filed a writ petition in the High Court of judicature at Madras challenging CIC's order dated 1 October 2018. The High Court vide its order dated 9 November 2018 and 10 December 2018 had granted stay on CIC's order dated 1 October 2018. Stay order is still in operation.”
Hence, CIC Tiwari ordered that RTI applicant Dhasal has the right to be heard by the FAA and given a point-to-point reply. CIC Tiwari ordered that “In the given circumstance, the commission finds it just and reasonable, in accordance with principles of natural justice, that a fair and proper hearing should be conducted by the first appellate authority, MYAS by giving due opportunity to the appellant to present his case before the FAA as per his RTI application.”
“Hence, the present case is remanded back to the first appellate authority, for adjudication of first appeal upon providing fair hearing to both the parties. The first appeal shall be decided by a reasoned, point-wise and speaking order on merits. The respondent should facilitate personal hearing or video-conference to the appellant to present his case before the first appellate authority.”
The FAA has been ordered to implement this order within six weeks and has directed the RTI applicant that “in case of non-compliance or if he is not satisfied with the order passed by the FAA, he is at liberty to approach the commission.”
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)
.JPG)
.JPG)
