Counter Currents: Hyderabad: Friday, 22 August 2025.
In a deeply troubling development, the Union Government’s National Sports Governance Bill has brought the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) under the National Sports Board (NSB). And, most problematically, legislators exempted it and other sports federations from the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This is another attack on the transparency in India, also further undermining the Right to Information Act, 2005. It will be violating the principles and several judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts, Law Commission recommendations, and CIC Judgments, declaring BCCI as a Public Authority under the Constitution of India.
The BCCI, though
technically a private society, wields state-like powers over Indian cricket. It
selects national teams, organizes tournaments on public land, uses government
security, and enjoys tax exemptions.
This is not merely an administrative change; it is a strategic retreat from transparency, undermining two decades of advocacy and judicial interpretation that sought to democratize and regulate India’s most powerful sporting body. It contradicts both judicial precedents and the recommendations of statutory bodies like the Law Commission of India, which had urged that the BCCI be brought squarely within the purview of the RTI Act.
BCCI as a Public Authority
The BCCI, though technically a private society, wields state-like powers over Indian cricket. It selects national teams, organizes tournaments on public land, uses government security, and enjoys tax exemptions.
Recognizing these facts, (this author, as Central Information Commissioner), held that the BCCI is a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. He stated: “Functioning of the BCCI directly affects the public interest and national image. It cannot shy away from public accountability just because it was not created by statute.” In his detailed order (by this author as CIC) dated July 10, 2018, he noted:
“BCCI is an organization whose actions and decisions affect the fundamental rights of citizens. Selection for national teams, organizing matches in stadiums built on public land, and use of state police and security forces are public functions, not private acts.”
On October 2, 2018, the CIC (judgment of this author as CIC), the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was covered under the Right to Information Act saying “The SC has also reaffirmed that the BCCI is the approved’ national-level body holding virtually monopoly rights to organize cricketing events in the country”. Hence, it was held answerable to the people of the country under its mechanism. The CIC appellate body in RTI matters, went through the law, orders of the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India report, submissions of the Central Public Information Officer in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to conclude that the status, nature and functional characteristics of the BCCI fulfil required conditions of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The CIC directed the President and Committee of Administrators to designate deserving officers as central public information officers, central assistant public information officers, and first appellate authorities as required under the law. Acharyulu has given the BCCI 15 days to put online and offline mechanisms in place to receive applications for information under the RTI Act. The matter came before him as the Sports Ministry did not give a satisfactory response to an RTI applicant, Geeta Rani, who had sought to know the provisions and guidelines under which the BCCI has been representing India and selecting players for the country. The CIC also stated:
The BCCI should be listed as an NSF covered under the RTI Act. The RTI Act should be made applicable to the BCCI along with its entire constituent member cricketing associations, provided they fulfill the criteria applicable to the BCCI, as discussed in the Law Commission’s report.
It was reported: “There was a CIC hearing on July 10 when it was asked as to why BCCI shouldn’t come under the RTI? The BCCI didn’t even file a reply and sat on the show-cause notice.
The Supreme Court and LCI supported
This legal reasoning was bolstered by the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, where the court emphasized that BCCI discharges “public functions”, and thus can be subject to judicial and constitutional norms.
Furthermore, the Law Commission of India, in its 275th report, concluded unambiguously that BCCI qualifies as a public authority and should be brought under the RTI Act. The Commission observed:
“The BCCI exercises ‘state-like’ powers and monopolistic control over cricket. Its actions have a huge impact on the fundamental rights of players and the public, and hence it must be held accountable under RTI.”
It further stated: “BCCI virtually acts as a National Sports Federation. It selects players to represent the country, frames rules for the game, and receives indirect funding and support from the government… There is no justification for keeping such an entity outside the purview of the RTI Act.”
The Proposed Exemption: Eroding the RTI Ecosystem
Exempting the BCCI from RTI not only undermines judicial and expert opinion but also sets a dangerous precedent for diluting the RTI Act.
Here’s how it affects the broader RTI regime:
Comparative Perspective: UK and Australia Show the Way
Far from exempting powerful sports bodies, democracies like the United Kingdom and Australia have moved towards greater transparency in sports governance.
United Kingdom:
An issue of the Right to know
Cricket is more than a game in India it is a public trust, and the body that governs it must be accountable to the people.
By excluding the BCCI from the RTI Act, the government is not just shielding one organization it is sending a message that powerful institutions can evade public scrutiny if they are politically or financially influential enough.
If transparency is compromised in the case of India’s most visible and wealthiest sports body, it won’t be long before others seek the same immunity. Such moves will steadily erode citizens’ rights to know, corrode the culture of accountability, and damage India’s global image as a democracy that values openness.
The RTI Act is a pillar of democratic governance in India. Any exemption to BCCI will not just be a technicality it will be a precedent with far-reaching consequences. Parliament must think twice before legislating secrecy into a domain that so clearly belongs to the public.
As the Law Commission reminded us: “Transparency in sports governance is essential to ensure fairness, prevent corruption, and uphold the spirit of the game. The BCCI must not be allowed to escape public scrutiny.” Transparency is not optional. It is foundational.
In a deeply troubling development, the Union Government’s National Sports Governance Bill has brought the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) under the National Sports Board (NSB). And, most problematically, legislators exempted it and other sports federations from the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This is another attack on the transparency in India, also further undermining the Right to Information Act, 2005. It will be violating the principles and several judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts, Law Commission recommendations, and CIC Judgments, declaring BCCI as a Public Authority under the Constitution of India.
This is not merely an administrative change; it is a strategic retreat from transparency, undermining two decades of advocacy and judicial interpretation that sought to democratize and regulate India’s most powerful sporting body. It contradicts both judicial precedents and the recommendations of statutory bodies like the Law Commission of India, which had urged that the BCCI be brought squarely within the purview of the RTI Act.
BCCI as a Public Authority
The BCCI, though technically a private society, wields state-like powers over Indian cricket. It selects national teams, organizes tournaments on public land, uses government security, and enjoys tax exemptions.
Recognizing these facts, (this author, as Central Information Commissioner), held that the BCCI is a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. He stated: “Functioning of the BCCI directly affects the public interest and national image. It cannot shy away from public accountability just because it was not created by statute.” In his detailed order (by this author as CIC) dated July 10, 2018, he noted:
“BCCI is an organization whose actions and decisions affect the fundamental rights of citizens. Selection for national teams, organizing matches in stadiums built on public land, and use of state police and security forces are public functions, not private acts.”
On October 2, 2018, the CIC (judgment of this author as CIC), the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was covered under the Right to Information Act saying “The SC has also reaffirmed that the BCCI is the approved’ national-level body holding virtually monopoly rights to organize cricketing events in the country”. Hence, it was held answerable to the people of the country under its mechanism. The CIC appellate body in RTI matters, went through the law, orders of the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India report, submissions of the Central Public Information Officer in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to conclude that the status, nature and functional characteristics of the BCCI fulfil required conditions of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The CIC directed the President and Committee of Administrators to designate deserving officers as central public information officers, central assistant public information officers, and first appellate authorities as required under the law. Acharyulu has given the BCCI 15 days to put online and offline mechanisms in place to receive applications for information under the RTI Act. The matter came before him as the Sports Ministry did not give a satisfactory response to an RTI applicant, Geeta Rani, who had sought to know the provisions and guidelines under which the BCCI has been representing India and selecting players for the country. The CIC also stated:
The BCCI should be listed as an NSF covered under the RTI Act. The RTI Act should be made applicable to the BCCI along with its entire constituent member cricketing associations, provided they fulfill the criteria applicable to the BCCI, as discussed in the Law Commission’s report.
It was reported: “There was a CIC hearing on July 10 when it was asked as to why BCCI shouldn’t come under the RTI? The BCCI didn’t even file a reply and sat on the show-cause notice.
The Supreme Court and LCI supported
This legal reasoning was bolstered by the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, where the court emphasized that BCCI discharges “public functions”, and thus can be subject to judicial and constitutional norms.
Furthermore, the Law Commission of India, in its 275th report, concluded unambiguously that BCCI qualifies as a public authority and should be brought under the RTI Act. The Commission observed:
“The BCCI exercises ‘state-like’ powers and monopolistic control over cricket. Its actions have a huge impact on the fundamental rights of players and the public, and hence it must be held accountable under RTI.”
It further stated: “BCCI virtually acts as a National Sports Federation. It selects players to represent the country, frames rules for the game, and receives indirect funding and support from the government… There is no justification for keeping such an entity outside the purview of the RTI Act.”
The Proposed Exemption: Eroding the RTI Ecosystem
Exempting the BCCI from RTI not only undermines judicial and expert opinion but also sets a dangerous precedent for diluting the RTI Act.
Here’s how it affects the broader RTI regime:
- Institutional Impunity: If a body like BCCI, which receives indirect public funding and exercises public authority, is exempt, other powerful private entities with public functions may demand similar treatment.
- Legitimizing Secrecy: The move signals to citizens and bureaucracies that opacity is acceptable in public-interest domains. It emboldens other departments to resist transparency by altering definitions and classifications.
- Weakening RTI Norms: RTI has been one of India’s most effective tools for grassroots activism and investigative journalism. This exemption will further embolden moves to undermine information commissions, deny information, or narrow definitions of “public interest”.
- Reversal of Progressive Interpretation: Over the years, courts and information commissions have expanded the scope of RTI through liberal interpretations. This proposed law legislatively overturns that progress and curtails the Act’s evolution.
Comparative Perspective: UK and Australia Show the Way
Far from exempting powerful sports bodies, democracies like the United Kingdom and Australia have moved towards greater transparency in sports governance.
United Kingdom:
- The UK Sport and Sport England, both government-funded sports bodies, are subject to the UK Freedom of Information Act.
- Even national governing bodies for sport that receive significant public funds are required to publish financial statements, governance codes, and performance metrics.
- After scandals in UK athletics and football, sports governance codes were introduced with strong emphasis on openness, diversity, and accountability.
- In Australia, national sports organizations that receive funding from the Australian Sports Commission must meet transparency benchmarks.
- These organizations are subject to public audits, performance reporting, and ethical compliance requirements.
- Australia’s Freedom of Information Act 1982 applies to sports bodies engaged in public functions or funded by public money.
An issue of the Right to know
Cricket is more than a game in India it is a public trust, and the body that governs it must be accountable to the people.
By excluding the BCCI from the RTI Act, the government is not just shielding one organization it is sending a message that powerful institutions can evade public scrutiny if they are politically or financially influential enough.
If transparency is compromised in the case of India’s most visible and wealthiest sports body, it won’t be long before others seek the same immunity. Such moves will steadily erode citizens’ rights to know, corrode the culture of accountability, and damage India’s global image as a democracy that values openness.
The RTI Act is a pillar of democratic governance in India. Any exemption to BCCI will not just be a technicality it will be a precedent with far-reaching consequences. Parliament must think twice before legislating secrecy into a domain that so clearly belongs to the public.
As the Law Commission reminded us: “Transparency in sports governance is essential to ensure fairness, prevent corruption, and uphold the spirit of the game. The BCCI must not be allowed to escape public scrutiny.” Transparency is not optional. It is foundational.
(Prof
M Sridhar Acharyulu, former Central Information Commissioner, Advisor, Mahindra
University, Hyderabad.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
