CrackitToday App

CIC Exemption of BCCI from the RTI Act, 2005

Kumari Sonali

CIC Exemption of BCCI from the RTI Act, 2005:

 

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not qualify as a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

  • The CIC reversed its 2018 order, which had earlier declared the BCCI a public authority under the RTI Act.
  • The CIC held that the BCCI fails to satisfy the statutory definition of a “public authority” under Section 2(h) because it is a private society registered under Tamil Nadu law, rather than an entity established by Parliament, state legislatures, or an executive notification.
  • The Commission explicitly clarified that tax exemptions or statutory concessions available generally under law do not constitute “substantial financing” by the government (a critical legal threshold required to bring an independent body under the RTI Act).
  • The ruling highlighted that the government exercises no meaningful administrative control over the BCCI, plays no role in appointing its office-bearers, and does not fund its multi-crore market-driven operations (IPL media rights, sponsorships, etc.).
  • The CIC grounded its decision in established jurisprudence:
    • Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank v. State of Kerala (2013): The Supreme Court held that bodies receiving indirect benefits or limited government aid cannot automatically be treated as “public authorities” under the RTI Act.
    • Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005): The Court ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution despite performing public functions.
    • Dalco Engineering v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye (2010): The Supreme Court clarified that substantial government financing or control is necessary for an entity to fall within statutory public accountability frameworks.
    • The Commission noted that the Supreme Court’s verdict in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2016) mandated internal governance reforms but stopped short of declaring the BCCI a public authority.
    • The order observed that the transparency recommendations made by the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee (2015) and the Law Commission of India’s 275th Report (2018) on transparency and accountability were termed merely advisory and cannot override the explicit statutory language enacted by Parliament.
    • Caution Against Regulatory Overreach: The CIC concluded that superimposing public-sector administrative oversight frameworks onto autonomous, market-driven sports entities could create unintended disruptions in a finely balanced economic structure, noting that government control does not automatically guarantee fairness.