BCCI kept out of RTI Act ambit, CIC overturns 2018 order
New Delhi, May 18
The Central Information Commission has ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India does not fall under the definition of a "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, effectively placing the cricket body outside the ambit of transparency laws applicable to government institutions.
The decision, issued by Information Commissioner P R Ramesh, overturns a 2018 order by then CIC chief M Sridhar Acharyulu, which had classified the BCCI as a public authority and directed it to establish a mechanism for handling RTI applications.
The matter reached the Madras High Court after the BCCI challenged the earlier ruling, following which the court remanded the case back to the CIC in September 2025 for reconsideration. The latest ruling has now gone in favour of the BCCI.
The order issued on Tuesday is that the Central Information Commission, through an order passed by Information Commissioner P R Ramesh, has held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not fall within the ambit of "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and therefore is not subject to the provisions of the RTI Act. The matter was reconsidered pursuant to the directions issued by the Madras High Court in its order dated 17.09.2025 in W.P. No. 29615 of 2018, whereby the earlier order of the Commission dated 01.10.2018 was remitted for fresh adjudication in light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535. In the detailed order, PR Ramesh observed that the BCCI is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and is neither established by nor under the Constitution nor created by any law enacted by Parliament or a state legislature. The Commission further noted that the BCCI was not constituted through any government notification or executive order. Relying upon authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court, including Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, and Dalco Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye, the Commission held that the BCCI does not satisfy the statutory requirements prescribed under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission further recorded that the BCCI is an autonomous private body governed by its own rules and regulations. There is no deep or pervasive control exercised by the government over the administration, management, or affairs of the BCCI. The government has no role in the appointment of office-bearers or in the internal functioning of the organisation.
It further said that the BCCI is financially independent and generates its revenues through media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting arrangements, ticket sales, and other commercial activities, and the tax exemptions or statutory concessions available generally under law cannot be treated as "substantial financing" by the government within the meaning of the RTI Act. The Commission further clarified that although the Supreme Court in Cricket Association of Bihar had emphasised transparency and governance reforms in cricket administration, the Court had not declared the BCCI to be a "public authority" under the RTI Act. The order also noted that recommendations made by the Lodha Committee and the Law Commission regarding transparency in sports administration were advisory in nature and could not override the express statutory framework contained in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The Commission additionally observed that the RTI application in the present matter had been filed before the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, which had categorically stated that the requested information was not available with it and that the application could not be transferred to the BCCI, since the latter had not been declared a public authority under the RTI Act.
Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the provisions of the RTI Act are inapplicable to the BCCI in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
After the decision, BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia told reporters, "Today, a landmark judgement has come from the Central Information Commission (CIC), in which it has been very clearly stated that BCCI cannot come under the realm of the RTI Act. This has been the consistent stand of BCCI for the last several years before various forums, including in the Supreme Court... I fully welcome the judgement given by the CIC today."
— ANI
Reader Comments
I get that BCCI is technically a private society, but come on—it's a monopoly that controls Indian cricket entirely. The Supreme Court itself flagged governance issues. This order feels like a step backward for accountability. 😕
There's a fine line between protecting autonomy and avoiding accountability. BCCI's financial independence is commendable, but with great power comes great responsibility. A middle path—like voluntary disclosure—would have been better than outright exclusion from RTI. 🤷♂️
Legally, the CIC followed the law as it stands—no deep government control, no public funding. But ethically, fans deserve to know how their favourite sport is run. Maybe it's time for Parliament to amend the RTI Act to cover sports bodies that enjoy public trust and resources.
Yaar, this is a mixed bag. On one hand, BCCI isn't a government department so RTI shouldn't automatically apply. On the other hand, they benefit hugely from public resources—stadiums built on taxpayer money, police security, etc. Shouldn't there be some transparency in return? 🤔
The Lodha Committee recommendations are 'advisory' they say. Sure, but ignoring the spirit of those reforms is not a good look. BCCI should voluntarily adopt transparency norms if they want to maintain public trust. Otherwise, it just looks like they have something to hide. 😬
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.