The Indian Express: New Delhi: Tuesday, 12Th
August 2025.
Over the years, the world’s richest cricket board has pushed back on being labelled a “public authority” under the RTI Act, despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission and the Central Information Commission.
The Board of Control for
Cricket in India (BCCI) will not be subject to provisions of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act, according to the latest version of the National Sports
Governance Bill, 2025.
According to the proposed law, only sports bodies that receive financial assistance from the State constitute a “public authority” under the RTI Act. This effectively excludes the cash-rich BCCI, which does not avail direct financial aid from the government.
Over the years, the world’s richest cricket board has pushed back on being labelled a public authority despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it under the transparency law.
The new law & an exception for BCCI
The National Sports Governance Bill seeks to provide for the recognition of national sports bodies, and regulate their functioning. The Bill essentially aims to align Indian sports governance with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and international sporting best practices.
This would bring in transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up a number of hosting, collaboration and funding opportunities. Given that cricket will soon be included as an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law.
At the same time, the government is clearly open to making some exceptions.
The initial version of the Bill tabled in Parliament on July 23 would have brought every recognised sports body under the RTI Act. Clause 15(2) of that draft stated that a “recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers.” This broad definition would have included the BCCI, making its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny.
In a later version of the Bill, which is likely to be debated in Parliament next week, this clause has been tweaked. The new provision states that a recognised sports organisation “receiving grants or any other financial assistance” from the government shall be considered a public authority only “with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance”.
This change makes direct government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively keeping the BCCI away from RTI scrutiny.
BCCI & RTI: an old battle
The BCCI has consistently argued that it is a private, autonomous body and not a “public authority”. Indeed, it is not a sports federation under the Union Sports Ministry: legally, it is an autonomous charitable society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It does not take direct financial aid from the government.
This stance has been its cornerstone in resisting attempts to bring it under the RTI Act it maintains that being financially and organisationally independent of the State places it outside the government’s regulatory framework for public bodies.
This position has been strongly contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The Law Commission of India, for instance, its 275th Report in 2018, recommended that the BCCI be classified as a public authority. It argued that the board’s claims of financial independence do not hold up when indirect benefits are considered.
It also pointed out that the BCCI has received significant indirect financial assistance from the government over the years. Between 1997 and 2007, it noted, the board availed tax exemptions to the tune of over Rs 2,100 crores due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The Law Commission argued that this foregoing of revenue, which would have otherwise gone to the national exchequer, is a form of substantial indirect funding.
The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates such as in Himachal Pradesh, where land for a stadium was reportedly leased for a nominal Re 1 per month.
Beyond finances, both the Law Commission and the Supreme Court, in multiple judgements, have emphasised that the BCCI performs “public functions” that are akin to those of a state body. It selects the national teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the “tacit concurrence” of the government, according to a Supreme Court judgement from 2015.
Previous recommendations not implemented
A Justice RM Lodha-led committee, appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms to the BCCI, described the cricket body’s functioning as a “closed door and back-room affair.” It found that critical information, including its constitution and financial details, was not easily accessible, and requests for information were often ignored, underscoring the need for greater public scrutiny.
The committee recommended that the “legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act,” stating that the public has a right to know about its activities. Following this, the Supreme Court in 2016, while hearing the case on the Lodha reforms, referred the issue to the Law Commission of India, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency.
The Law Commission, in its 2018 report, concluded that the BCCI should be classified as a “public authority” under the RTI Act based on both its public functions and the indirect government funding it receives. This was followed by a landmark order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the same year, which declared the BCCI a “public authority” and directed it to set up mechanisms to handle RTI queries.
However, the BCCI challenged this order in the Madras High Court, which put a stay on its implementation leaving the matter in a legal limbo.
What BCCI being under RTI would mean
Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could file a query and seek information on its functioning. This would go far beyond just financial matters and would cover the entire gamut of its operations.
The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the appointment process for officials and coaches and the minutes of its meetings. This would enforce a level of transparency and public accountability that is currently absent, forcing the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, rather than just to its own constituent members.
The Supreme Court, in 2015, has already held that even though the BCCI is not a state institution, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because it performs public functions. This means that the High Courts can intervene in the BCCI’s affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.
Over the years, the world’s richest cricket board has pushed back on being labelled a “public authority” under the RTI Act, despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission and the Central Information Commission.
 |
| Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could file a query for information on its functioning. This would cover the entire gamut of its operations. (File photo) |
According to the proposed law, only sports bodies that receive financial assistance from the State constitute a “public authority” under the RTI Act. This effectively excludes the cash-rich BCCI, which does not avail direct financial aid from the government.
Over the years, the world’s richest cricket board has pushed back on being labelled a public authority despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it under the transparency law.
The new law & an exception for BCCI
The National Sports Governance Bill seeks to provide for the recognition of national sports bodies, and regulate their functioning. The Bill essentially aims to align Indian sports governance with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and international sporting best practices.
This would bring in transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up a number of hosting, collaboration and funding opportunities. Given that cricket will soon be included as an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law.
At the same time, the government is clearly open to making some exceptions.
The initial version of the Bill tabled in Parliament on July 23 would have brought every recognised sports body under the RTI Act. Clause 15(2) of that draft stated that a “recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers.” This broad definition would have included the BCCI, making its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny.
In a later version of the Bill, which is likely to be debated in Parliament next week, this clause has been tweaked. The new provision states that a recognised sports organisation “receiving grants or any other financial assistance” from the government shall be considered a public authority only “with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance”.
This change makes direct government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively keeping the BCCI away from RTI scrutiny.
BCCI & RTI: an old battle
The BCCI has consistently argued that it is a private, autonomous body and not a “public authority”. Indeed, it is not a sports federation under the Union Sports Ministry: legally, it is an autonomous charitable society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It does not take direct financial aid from the government.
This stance has been its cornerstone in resisting attempts to bring it under the RTI Act it maintains that being financially and organisationally independent of the State places it outside the government’s regulatory framework for public bodies.
This position has been strongly contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The Law Commission of India, for instance, its 275th Report in 2018, recommended that the BCCI be classified as a public authority. It argued that the board’s claims of financial independence do not hold up when indirect benefits are considered.
It also pointed out that the BCCI has received significant indirect financial assistance from the government over the years. Between 1997 and 2007, it noted, the board availed tax exemptions to the tune of over Rs 2,100 crores due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The Law Commission argued that this foregoing of revenue, which would have otherwise gone to the national exchequer, is a form of substantial indirect funding.
The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates such as in Himachal Pradesh, where land for a stadium was reportedly leased for a nominal Re 1 per month.
Beyond finances, both the Law Commission and the Supreme Court, in multiple judgements, have emphasised that the BCCI performs “public functions” that are akin to those of a state body. It selects the national teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the “tacit concurrence” of the government, according to a Supreme Court judgement from 2015.
Previous recommendations not implemented
A Justice RM Lodha-led committee, appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms to the BCCI, described the cricket body’s functioning as a “closed door and back-room affair.” It found that critical information, including its constitution and financial details, was not easily accessible, and requests for information were often ignored, underscoring the need for greater public scrutiny.
The committee recommended that the “legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act,” stating that the public has a right to know about its activities. Following this, the Supreme Court in 2016, while hearing the case on the Lodha reforms, referred the issue to the Law Commission of India, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency.
The Law Commission, in its 2018 report, concluded that the BCCI should be classified as a “public authority” under the RTI Act based on both its public functions and the indirect government funding it receives. This was followed by a landmark order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the same year, which declared the BCCI a “public authority” and directed it to set up mechanisms to handle RTI queries.
However, the BCCI challenged this order in the Madras High Court, which put a stay on its implementation leaving the matter in a legal limbo.
What BCCI being under RTI would mean
Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could file a query and seek information on its functioning. This would go far beyond just financial matters and would cover the entire gamut of its operations.
The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the appointment process for officials and coaches and the minutes of its meetings. This would enforce a level of transparency and public accountability that is currently absent, forcing the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, rather than just to its own constituent members.
The Supreme Court, in 2015, has already held that even though the BCCI is not a state institution, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because it performs public functions. This means that the High Courts can intervene in the BCCI’s affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.
.JPG)
.JPG)
