The Central Information Commission (CIC) has determined that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not fall under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The CIC stated that the BCCI is not considered a “public authority” as it is neither government-established nor significantly funded or controlled by the government. Information Commissioner P.R. Ramesh dismissed an appeal seeking information on the BCCI’s authority to represent India in international cricket and select players for the national team, citing non-compliance with the RTI Act’s statutory requirements.
The CIC’s order, issued on Monday, clarified that the BCCI does not meet the criteria outlined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act to be classified as a ‘Public Authority’. The appeal arose from an RTI application filed in 2017 with the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, inquiring about the BCCI’s representation of India, government benefits, and the extent of governmental control over the cricket body.
During the proceedings, the BCCI contended that it is a private autonomous society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and does not fulfill the ownership, control, or substantial financing requirements under the RTI Act. The CIC emphasized that the BCCI was not established by the Constitution, Parliament, or any government notification but is merely a society registered under the law.
The CIC also noted that there was no evidence indicating substantial government financing for the BCCI. The cricket body operates independently, generating revenue through various means such as media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting agreements, and ticket sales. The CIC referenced a Supreme Court ruling that acknowledged the public nature of the BCCI’s functions but did not classify it as a “public authority” under the RTI Act.
In its final decision, the CIC upheld the arguments presented by the respondents, stating that the burden to prove government ownership, control, or substantial financing of the BCCI was not met by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Commission.
