The Central Information Commission (CIC) on Monday ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) cannot be classified as a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, holding that the cricket board is neither owned, controlled nor substantially financed by the government.
The Commission dismissed an appeal that sought details regarding the provisions and authority under which the BCCI represents India and selects players for national and international cricket tournaments.
Information Commissioner P R Ramesh, in his order, said the BCCI is a private autonomous body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and does not fall within the definition of a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
“The BCCI cannot be classified as a ‘Public Authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and the provisions of the Act are therefore inapplicable to it in the facts and circumstances of the present case,” Ramesh said in the order.
The ruling brings to a close a jurisdictional battle that has continued since 2018. Former Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu had earlier declared the BCCI a public authority under the RTI Act and directed it to appoint Public Information Officers.
The BCCI challenged that decision before the Madras High Court. The court later remitted the matter back to the CIC for fresh adjudication after taking into account Supreme Court precedents on the issue.
In the fresh ruling, the Commission said the BCCI failed to meet the statutory requirements laid down under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The order noted that the Board was neither established by or under the Constitution nor created through any law enacted by Parliament or a state legislature.
The Commission also examined the nature of the BCCI’s functioning, financial structure and relationship with the government before arriving at its conclusion.
On the question of government control, the CIC said there was “no deep or pervasive control” exercised by the government over the Board’s administration or internal affairs.
The order further observed that the BCCI functions as a financially independent entity, generating its revenue through media rights, sponsorship agreements, broadcasting deals and ticket sales.
The Commission also clarified that tax exemptions or statutory concessions available under law cannot be treated as “substantial financing” by the government under the RTI Act.
The case stemmed from an RTI application seeking to know the legal basis on which the BCCI represents the country in cricket and conducts player selection for international tournaments despite being a private body.
The latest order is likely to remain significant in the continuing debate around transparency and accountability in Indian cricket administration, especially given the BCCI’s influence over the sport in the country and globally
– Ends
 on Monday ruled that the BCCI is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act, saying the cricket board is neither owned, controlled nor substantially financed by the government.){kind=link}