Indian Express: New Delhi: Wednesday, 13Th
August 2025.
Under the provisions of the Bill, only a sports body that receives financial assistance from the state qualifies as a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This effectively excludes the BCCI because it does not receive any direct financial aid from the government.
Rajya Sabha cleared the
National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, on Tuesday, a day after its passage in
Lok Sabha.
Congress general secretary in charge of communications and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh posted on X that the proposed law would “result in the extreme centralisation of sports administration”, and that “BCCI will get most favoured treatment, not subject to any laws of the land like the RTI”.
Under the provisions of the Bill, only a sports body that receives financial assistance from the state qualifies as a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This effectively excludes the BCCI because it does not receive any direct financial aid from the government.
The world’s richest cricket board has over the years resisted being labelled as a public authority, despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India, and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it in the ambit of India’s transparency law.
The Bill and exception:
The proposed law will provide for the recognition of national sports bodies and regulate their functioning, and will align sports governance in India with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and with international best practices.
The aim is to bring transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up hosting, collaboration, and funding opportunities. Since cricket will soon be an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law.
Clause 15(2) of the Bill that was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 23 said 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 include the BCCI and make its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny.
A subsequent amendment to the draft, however, said 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, making government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively put the BCCI out of the ambit of the RTI Act.
Cricket board & RTI Act:
The BCCI has for long 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.
However, the BCCI’s position that its financial and organisational independence of the state places it outside the government’s regulatory framework for public bodies, has been contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
In its 275th Report (2018) titled ‘Legal Framework: BCCI vis-à-vis Right to Information Act, 2005’, the Law Commission of India recommended that BCCI should be classified as a public authority, pointing to the significant indirect financial assistance it had received from the government over the years.
The Report noted that between 1997 and 2007, the board had received tax exemptions to the tune of more than Rs 2,100 crore due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The foregoing of this revenue amounted to indirect funding for the board, the Commission argued.
The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates; for example, in Himachal Pradesh, the land for a stadium was reportedly leased for Re 1 per month.
The Supreme Court has noted that the BCCI performs “public functions” that are akin to those of a state body. In a 2015 judgment, the court noted that it selects the teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols, and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the “tacit concurrence” of the government.
A committee led by Justice R M Lodha, which was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms in cricket, described the functioning of the BCCI as a “closed door and back-room affair”, and said that the “legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act”.
In 2016, the top court referred the matter to the Law Commission, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency.
The Law Commission submitted its report in 2018 (mentioned above), and that same year, the Central Information Commission (CIC) passed a landmark order declaring the BCCI as a “public authority”, and directing the board to set up a mechanism to handle queries under the RTI Act.
The BCCI challenged the order in the Madras High Court, which stayed its implementation, leaving the matter in legal limbo.
If BCCI were under RTI:
Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could seek information covering not just financial matters, but the entire gamut of the board’s operations.
The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the process of appointment of officials and coaches, and the minutes of BCCI meetings. This would force the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, and not just to its constituent members.
In its 2015 judgment, the Supreme Court had 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 High Courts can intervene in the BCCI’s affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.
Under the provisions of the Bill, only a sports body that receives financial assistance from the state qualifies as a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This effectively excludes the BCCI because it does not receive any direct financial aid from the government.
Congress general secretary in charge of communications and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh posted on X that the proposed law would “result in the extreme centralisation of sports administration”, and that “BCCI will get most favoured treatment, not subject to any laws of the land like the RTI”.
Under the provisions of the Bill, only a sports body that receives financial assistance from the state qualifies as a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This effectively excludes the BCCI because it does not receive any direct financial aid from the government.
The world’s richest cricket board has over the years resisted being labelled as a public authority, despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India, and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it in the ambit of India’s transparency law.
The Bill and exception:
The proposed law will provide for the recognition of national sports bodies and regulate their functioning, and will align sports governance in India with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and with international best practices.
The aim is to bring transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up hosting, collaboration, and funding opportunities. Since cricket will soon be an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law.
Clause 15(2) of the Bill that was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 23 said 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 include the BCCI and make its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny.
A subsequent amendment to the draft, however, said 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, making government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively put the BCCI out of the ambit of the RTI Act.
Cricket board & RTI Act:
The BCCI has for long 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.
However, the BCCI’s position that its financial and organisational independence of the state places it outside the government’s regulatory framework for public bodies, has been contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
In its 275th Report (2018) titled ‘Legal Framework: BCCI vis-à-vis Right to Information Act, 2005’, the Law Commission of India recommended that BCCI should be classified as a public authority, pointing to the significant indirect financial assistance it had received from the government over the years.
The Report noted that between 1997 and 2007, the board had received tax exemptions to the tune of more than Rs 2,100 crore due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The foregoing of this revenue amounted to indirect funding for the board, the Commission argued.
The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates; for example, in Himachal Pradesh, the land for a stadium was reportedly leased for Re 1 per month.
The Supreme Court has noted that the BCCI performs “public functions” that are akin to those of a state body. In a 2015 judgment, the court noted that it selects the teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols, and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the “tacit concurrence” of the government.
A committee led by Justice R M Lodha, which was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms in cricket, described the functioning of the BCCI as a “closed door and back-room affair”, and said that the “legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act”.
In 2016, the top court referred the matter to the Law Commission, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency.
The Law Commission submitted its report in 2018 (mentioned above), and that same year, the Central Information Commission (CIC) passed a landmark order declaring the BCCI as a “public authority”, and directing the board to set up a mechanism to handle queries under the RTI Act.
The BCCI challenged the order in the Madras High Court, which stayed its implementation, leaving the matter in legal limbo.
If BCCI were under RTI:
Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could seek information covering not just financial matters, but the entire gamut of the board’s operations.
The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the process of appointment of officials and coaches, and the minutes of BCCI meetings. This would force the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, and not just to its constituent members.
In its 2015 judgment, the Supreme Court had 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 High Courts can intervene in the BCCI’s affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.
.JPG)
.JPG)
