‘BCCI Not a Public Authority’: Central Information Commission Reverses 2018 Order Bringing Cricket Board Under RTI Purview

Key Points

The Central Information Commission (CIC) on 18 May 2026 ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005, holding that the cricket board remains a financially independent and autonomous private body outside the ambit of mandatory public disclosure laws.

In its detailed order, the CIC held that the BCCI does not satisfy the conditions laid down under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines what constitutes a public authority.

“BCCI is neither established by or under the Constitution nor created by any law enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature,” the order stated. It described the cricket board as a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.

The Commission also rejected arguments that the BCCI operates under government control. According to the ruling, the level of control required under the RTI Act must be “substantial and pervasive” rather than merely supervisory or regulatory. “There exists no control of the Government over the functions, finance, administration, management and affairs of the BCCI,” the CIC said.

2018 CIC Order Includes BCCI Under RTI Purview

The order, passed by Information Commissioner PR Ramesh, overturned a 2018 CIC ruling by then Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu, which had directed the BCCI to appoint Public Information Officers and establish a mechanism to respond to RTI applications.

The matter returned to the CIC after the Madras High Court, in September 2025, remitted the case for fresh adjudication in light of Supreme Court observations in the BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar case.

The latest ruling came in response to an appeal filed by Delhi resident Geeta Rani, who had sought information regarding the legal authority under which the BCCI represents India in international cricket, selects players for the national team and receives support in the form of infrastructure and security arrangements during matches.

The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports had earlier informed the applicant that the information was not available with it and could not be transferred to the BCCI because the board had not declared itself a “public authority” under the RTI Act.

See Also: PM CARES Fund Faces Transparency Questions Amid RTI Exemption and Parliamentary Restrictions

‘BCCI Not a Public Authority Under RTI’: Details of CIC Order

The CIC relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Zee Telefilms Ltd. v Union of India, Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v State of Kerala and Dalco Engineering Pvt Ltd. v Satish Prabhakar Padhye, to conclude that public importance or regulatory oversight alone cannot convert a private body into a public authority under the RTI framework.

Addressing the issue of funding, the Commission said the BCCI is financially self-sustaining through media rights, sponsorships, ticket sales, broadcasting deals and commercial operations linked to cricket. “The BCCI is financially independent,” the order said, adding that incidental benefits such as tax exemptions or access to public infrastructure do not amount to “substantial financing” unless the organisation is materially dependent on them for survival.

The CIC also dismissed arguments that the BCCI should come under the RTI Act because it performs public functions such as selecting the Indian cricket team and regulating cricket nationally. “While this may be factually accurate, it is legally irrelevant for the purposes of Section 2(h). The RTI Act does not include ‘public function’ as a criterion for determining a public authority,” the Commission observed.

The order further clarified that the Supreme Court’s 2016 judgment in the Cricket Association of Bihar case had emphasised transparency and governance reforms within the BCCI but had not declared it a public authority under the RTI Act.

The CIC also said recommendations made by the Justice Lodha Committee and the Law Commission regarding greater transparency in cricket administration were advisory and did not override the statutory framework of the RTI Act.

In extensive observations accompanying the ruling, the CIC described the BCCI as the “financial epicentre of global cricket” and highlighted the role of the Indian Premier League: “At the heart of this economic structure lies the IPL, whose franchise-based model and media rights regime have redefined the financial architecture of the sport.”

The Commission cautioned that imposing government-style oversight on a market-driven body like the BCCI could create “unintended consequences, including inefficiencies or disruptions in a finely balanced economic structure.”

[DS]

Suggested Reading: