Why BCCI is Not Covered under the Right to Information Act

Background

The BCCI is the most powerful cricket body in India. It selects the Indian cricket team, conducts tournaments, controls cricket administration and manages large commercial revenues.

Earlier, in 2018, a CIC bench under Information Commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu had held that the BCCI should be treated as a public authority under the RTI Act. It directed the BCCI to appoint Central Public Information Officers and disclose information.

However, the Madras High Court later set aside that order and sent the matter back for fresh consideration. The 2026 CIC order came after this reconsideration.

Legal Framework

Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005

Section 2(h) defines a public authority as any authority, body or institution established or constituted by:

• the Constitution;
• any law made by Parliament;
• any law made by a State Legislature;
• government notification or order.

It also includes bodies that are:

• owned by the government;
• controlled by the government;
• substantially financed by the government;
• non-government organisations substantially financed by public funds.

Article 12 of the Constitution

Article 12 defines the term State for the purpose of Fundamental Rights. It includes the government, Parliament, State Legislatures and other authorities under government control.

The BCCI has not been treated as State under Article 12, though courts have recognised that it performs important public functions.

What the Central Information Commission (CIC) Said

1. BCCI is Not Created by Law

• The CIC held that the BCCI is a private association registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.
• The Commission clarified that registration under a statute does not mean that the body is created by that statute.
• For example, the State Bank of India was created by Parliament. But the BCCI was formed by cricket administrators and later registered as a society.
• Therefore, it has legal recognition, but not statutory status.

2. No Substantial Government Control

• The CIC said that the government does not exercise substantial and pervasive control over the BCCI.
• The BCCI’s office-bearers are elected internally. There is no government nominee in its committees. Government approval is not required for its decisions.
• The Commission relied on the principle that ordinary regulatory supervision is not enough. Control must be strong and deep over management, policy, administration and finance.

3. No Substantial Government Financing

The CIC held that the BCCI is not substantially financed by the government.

The BCCI mainly earns revenue through:

• media rights,
• sponsorships,
• broadcasting agreements,
• ticket sales,
• cricket-related commercial activities.

The use of government-owned stadiums or police deployment during matches was not considered substantial government financing.

4. Public Function Alone is Not Enough

• The BCCI performs important public functions such as selecting the Indian cricket team and regulating cricket in India.
• However, the CIC held that performing a public function alone does not automatically make a body a public authority under the RTI Act.
• To come under RTI, the body must satisfy the legal conditions mentioned under Section 2(h).

Supreme Court Judgments

Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, 2005

• In this case, the Supreme Court held that the BCCI is not “State” under Article 12.
• The Court observed that the BCCI was not financially, functionally or administratively dominated by the government. It had no government shareholding and did not receive significant financial assistance from the State.
• This judgment formed the constitutional basis for the CIC’s reasoning.

Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2013

• The Supreme Court held that “control” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act must mean substantial control, not mere supervision or regulation.
• The CIC used this principle to hold that the BCCI is not under substantial government control.

BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, 2016

• In this case, the Supreme Court imposed governance reforms on the BCCI through the Lodha Committee recommendations.
• The Court held that even if the BCCI is not “State” under Article 12, it can still be subject to judicial review under Article 226 because it performs public functions.
• This means High Courts can examine BCCI actions if they are arbitrary or against public interest.

Role of Lodha Committee and Law Commission

The Lodha Committee recommended major reforms in BCCI governance, including:

• tenure limits,
• one-state-one-vote principle,
• conflict-of-interest norms,
• structural reforms.

The Law Commission of India, in its 275th Report, 2018, recommended that the BCCI should be brought under the RTI Act because it performs functions similar to a National Sports Federation.

However, these recommendations did not become binding law.

National Sports Governance Act, 2025

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 provides that sports bodies receiving grants from the government may be treated as public authorities under the RTI Act, but only to the extent of utilisation of those funds.

Since the BCCI does not receive such government grants, it falls outside this provision.

Significance

1. Clarifies the Scope of RTI

• The decision explains that not every powerful or influential body automatically comes under RTI. The body must satisfy the conditions under Section 2(h).

2. Distinguishes Public Function from Public Authority

• The BCCI performs public functions, but that alone is not enough to classify it as a public authority under the RTI Act.

3. Protects Institutional Autonomy

• The order protects the autonomy of a private sports body from direct RTI obligations, unless Parliament clearly provides otherwise.

4. Highlights Sports Governance Issues

• The decision has again raised questions about transparency, accountability and fairness in sports administration.

Concerns

1. Accountability Gap

• The BCCI selects players who represent India and controls cricket administration. But people cannot seek information from it under RTI.

2. Lack of Transparency

• Information related to selection process, financial contracts, conflict of interest and governance may remain outside public scrutiny.

3. Public Importance of Cricket

• Cricket is not merely a private sport in India. It has national importance and large public participation.

4. Limits of Existing RTI Law

• The case shows that the RTI Act may not fully cover private bodies performing functions of high public importance.

5. Need for Legislative Clarity

• The issue requires a clear law on whether private bodies performing national-level public functions should follow transparency norms.

Way Forward

• The BCCI can voluntarily publish important information such as audited accounts, selection procedures, conflict-of-interest declarations and governance decisions.
• Parliament may consider a balanced transparency framework for sports bodies performing public functions.
• Sports governance reforms should protect autonomy while ensuring public accountability.
• The government should avoid excessive interference but promote minimum disclosure standards for bodies of national importance.
• A separate sports transparency framework may be developed for large sports bodies without converting them fully into government-controlled institutions.

Conclusion

The CIC’s 2026 decision keeps the BCCI outside the RTI Act because it is not created, controlled or substantially financed by the government. However, the BCCI performs important public functions and affects millions of citizens, players and fans.

Therefore, the issue is not only legal but also ethical and governance-related. India needs a balanced framework that ensures transparency, accountability and autonomy in sports administration.