The Indian Express: Delhi: Friday, 10th
July 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act, and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the Act.
In its May 2026 ruling,
the CIC underlined that the BCCI is a private society registered under the
Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. As “a private association of
individuals which has obtained legal recognition through registration”, the
BCCI is not subject to control of the government in any meaningful way, it
added.
The ruling revives broader questions about public authority, particularly in the context of the right to know as an essential part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. How did the right to know evolve in India into the Right to Information Act, 2005 , and what constitutes a public authority under the Act?
The constitutional foundation of the right to know:
Democracies across the world recognise access to information as the lifeblood of a vibrant civil society. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) affirm the right to seek, receive, and impart information as an integral component of freedom of expression.
In India, the judiciary played a vital role in facilitating the right to know as an essential part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. For instance, the Supreme Court made a landmark pronouncement in the State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Narain (1975) case by noting, “…people of this country have a right to know about every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries…”
In L K Koolwal vs State of Rajasthan (1986), the court reiterated, “Under Article 19(a) of the Constitution there exists the right of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is based on the foundation of the freedom of right to know.”
The evolution of the RTI Act:
Later on, the campaign for the right to information gained momentum with the historic struggle of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan during the 1990s.
Villagers in Devdungri who publicly scrutinised the fake muster rolls and other bills during public hearings emerged as the architects of the demand for transparency and accountability in governance. The grassroots movement eventually paved the way for the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The Act came into force in October 2005 with the objectives of promoting transparency and accountability in public administration, containing corruption, and strengthening participatory democracy through informed citizenry. But the most pertinent question is: what constitutes public authority under the RTI Act.
Public authority under the RTI Act:
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines public authority as any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted –
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government.
The definition further extends to any authority, body, or institution owned, controlled or substantially financed by appropriate governments. Even non-Government organisations substantially financed, either directly or indirectly, by the funds of the appropriate government come under the ambit of the Act.
In sum, the Act provides a broader definition of public authority to bring within its ambit not only governmental authorities but also institutions and bodies that function with substantial government funding and control.
Major obligations of public authorities:
Section 4 of the RTI Act lays down the major obligations of public authorities. Public authorities are mandated to maintain all their records systematically, duly catalogued and indexed to facilitate easy access to information. The Act also mandates every public authority to publish and annually update the particulars of their organisations, functions, duties, decisionmaking process and other relevant information.
Thus, the Act encourages public authorities to disseminate as much information as possible to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication, including the internet and in local language as far as practicable, to minimise the need for formal requests.
Furthermore, it is mandatory for public authorities to designate Public Information Officers (PIO) in all their administrative units and offices to receive RTI applications and provide requested information to applicants in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
However, a crucial question is whether or not the performance of public functions or “public actions” by an institution brings it within the ambit of the RTI Act.
Can “public actions” determine a public authority:
In its May 2026 ruling about the BCCI, the CIC relied on the three judgements of the Supreme Court – Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank v State of Kerala, Zee Telefilms v Union of India, and Dalco Engineering v Satish Prabhakar Padhye – holding that the BCCI did not satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
In Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court held that BCCI is not qualified as “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Nonetheless, several judicial observations and expert committee reports have acknowledged that the body performs significant public functions.
In 2018, then-Central Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu also held that the BCCI is a public authority and directed the body to set up mechanisms to disseminate information under the RTI Act.
But the BCCI challenged that order in the Madras High Court, which sent the matter back to the CIC for a fresh look in September 2025. And by holding that the BCCI is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act, the Commission reversed the 2018 ruling.
Why public functions alone are not enough:
But critics of the CIC ruling argue that the BCCI enjoys privileges like a public authority, such as the use of the nomenclature ‘India’ in international sports, tax exemptions, regulatory control over cricket, and the selection of the national team for the country, with the tacit consent of the State.
Nonetheless, the CIC said that certain tax exemptions enjoyed by the BCCI do not amount to the government substantially financing it. It further maintained that merely performing significant public functions does not automatically make the BCCI fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Moreover, the term “public function” does not appear anywhere in the Act for the purpose of defining “public authority”. Instead, the Act focuses on the nature of governmental control and the extent of public financing. It is these statutory tests that have become the focal point of judicial interpretation.
Governmental control and substantial financing:
Although the RTI Act does not clearly define terms such as “substantial financing” and “controlled by appropriate government”, CIC decisions and judicial interventions from time to time seek to clarify the use of these expressions.
In the Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd & others v State of Kerala & others (2013) case, the Supreme Court held that cooperative societies are not public authorities under the RTI Act. The court observed that “control” by the appropriate government must be substantial in nature and that mere supervision and regulation by the government is insufficient to bring any institution within the ambit of the Act.
The court also narrowly defined the term “substantial financing” as “essential”, without which a body cannot practically run. These interpretations keep non-governmental bodies, including those performing significant public functions and extensively regulated by the governments, outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Beyond legal formalism:
Beyond the legal and statutory debates, it may be suggested that institutions performing public functions, regardless of their form and nature of organisation, could strive to uphold and maximise accountability and transparency in their administration. Greater transparency and accountability strengthen public trust and contribute to the creation of social capital.
Moreover, market considerations and claims for competitive advantages need not override the broader democratic value of transparency in administration. Lastly, efforts to clarify the statutory meaning and scope of contested expressions could help broaden the ambit of transparency laws.
Post read questions:
The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act, and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the Act.
 |
The RTI Act came into
force in 2005 with the aim of promoting transparency and accountability in
public administration, containing corruption, and strengthening participatory
democracy. (File) |
The ruling revives broader questions about public authority, particularly in the context of the right to know as an essential part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. How did the right to know evolve in India into the Right to Information Act, 2005 , and what constitutes a public authority under the Act?
The constitutional foundation of the right to know:
Democracies across the world recognise access to information as the lifeblood of a vibrant civil society. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) affirm the right to seek, receive, and impart information as an integral component of freedom of expression.
In India, the judiciary played a vital role in facilitating the right to know as an essential part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. For instance, the Supreme Court made a landmark pronouncement in the State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Narain (1975) case by noting, “…people of this country have a right to know about every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries…”
In L K Koolwal vs State of Rajasthan (1986), the court reiterated, “Under Article 19(a) of the Constitution there exists the right of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is based on the foundation of the freedom of right to know.”
The evolution of the RTI Act:
Later on, the campaign for the right to information gained momentum with the historic struggle of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan during the 1990s.
Villagers in Devdungri who publicly scrutinised the fake muster rolls and other bills during public hearings emerged as the architects of the demand for transparency and accountability in governance. The grassroots movement eventually paved the way for the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The Act came into force in October 2005 with the objectives of promoting transparency and accountability in public administration, containing corruption, and strengthening participatory democracy through informed citizenry. But the most pertinent question is: what constitutes public authority under the RTI Act.
Public authority under the RTI Act:
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines public authority as any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted –
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government.
The definition further extends to any authority, body, or institution owned, controlled or substantially financed by appropriate governments. Even non-Government organisations substantially financed, either directly or indirectly, by the funds of the appropriate government come under the ambit of the Act.
In sum, the Act provides a broader definition of public authority to bring within its ambit not only governmental authorities but also institutions and bodies that function with substantial government funding and control.
Major obligations of public authorities:
Section 4 of the RTI Act lays down the major obligations of public authorities. Public authorities are mandated to maintain all their records systematically, duly catalogued and indexed to facilitate easy access to information. The Act also mandates every public authority to publish and annually update the particulars of their organisations, functions, duties, decisionmaking process and other relevant information.
Thus, the Act encourages public authorities to disseminate as much information as possible to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication, including the internet and in local language as far as practicable, to minimise the need for formal requests.
Furthermore, it is mandatory for public authorities to designate Public Information Officers (PIO) in all their administrative units and offices to receive RTI applications and provide requested information to applicants in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
However, a crucial question is whether or not the performance of public functions or “public actions” by an institution brings it within the ambit of the RTI Act.
Can “public actions” determine a public authority:
In its May 2026 ruling about the BCCI, the CIC relied on the three judgements of the Supreme Court – Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank v State of Kerala, Zee Telefilms v Union of India, and Dalco Engineering v Satish Prabhakar Padhye – holding that the BCCI did not satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
In Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court held that BCCI is not qualified as “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Nonetheless, several judicial observations and expert committee reports have acknowledged that the body performs significant public functions.
In 2018, then-Central Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu also held that the BCCI is a public authority and directed the body to set up mechanisms to disseminate information under the RTI Act.
But the BCCI challenged that order in the Madras High Court, which sent the matter back to the CIC for a fresh look in September 2025. And by holding that the BCCI is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act, the Commission reversed the 2018 ruling.
Why public functions alone are not enough:
But critics of the CIC ruling argue that the BCCI enjoys privileges like a public authority, such as the use of the nomenclature ‘India’ in international sports, tax exemptions, regulatory control over cricket, and the selection of the national team for the country, with the tacit consent of the State.
Nonetheless, the CIC said that certain tax exemptions enjoyed by the BCCI do not amount to the government substantially financing it. It further maintained that merely performing significant public functions does not automatically make the BCCI fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Moreover, the term “public function” does not appear anywhere in the Act for the purpose of defining “public authority”. Instead, the Act focuses on the nature of governmental control and the extent of public financing. It is these statutory tests that have become the focal point of judicial interpretation.
Governmental control and substantial financing:
Although the RTI Act does not clearly define terms such as “substantial financing” and “controlled by appropriate government”, CIC decisions and judicial interventions from time to time seek to clarify the use of these expressions.
In the Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd & others v State of Kerala & others (2013) case, the Supreme Court held that cooperative societies are not public authorities under the RTI Act. The court observed that “control” by the appropriate government must be substantial in nature and that mere supervision and regulation by the government is insufficient to bring any institution within the ambit of the Act.
The court also narrowly defined the term “substantial financing” as “essential”, without which a body cannot practically run. These interpretations keep non-governmental bodies, including those performing significant public functions and extensively regulated by the governments, outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Beyond legal formalism:
Beyond the legal and statutory debates, it may be suggested that institutions performing public functions, regardless of their form and nature of organisation, could strive to uphold and maximise accountability and transparency in their administration. Greater transparency and accountability strengthen public trust and contribute to the creation of social capital.
Moreover, market considerations and claims for competitive advantages need not override the broader democratic value of transparency in administration. Lastly, efforts to clarify the statutory meaning and scope of contested expressions could help broaden the ambit of transparency laws.
Post read questions:
- The right to information is an essential facet of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Discuss with reference to judicial pronouncements.
- Discuss the significance of proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. What are the key obligations of public authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005?
- Transparency and accountability are indispensable to democratic governance. Discuss the role of the Right to Information Act in strengthening these values.
- Should institutions performing public functions be treated as public authorities under the Right to Information Act? Why or why not?
.JPG)
.JPG)
