BCCI not a public authority under RTI Act, rules CIC in landmark order
Synopsis
The Central Information Commission has ruled the BCCI falls outside the RTI Act's definition of a 'public authority' — meaning India's most powerful cricket body, which controls billions in revenues and selects national teams, remains shielded from statutory transparency obligations. The ruling draws a sharp line between public function and public accountability.
Key Takeaways
The Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled on 18 May that the BCCI is not a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Information Commissioner P.R.
Ramesh dismissed the second appeal filed by Geeta Rani , who sought details on BCCI's authority to represent India and select players.
The CIC found the BCCI was not created by statute and is not substantially financed by the government.
The BCCI generates revenue independently through media rights , sponsorships , and broadcasting deals , and is financially self-sustaining, the order noted.
The CIC distinguished a prior Supreme Court ruling in BCCI v.
Cricket Association of Bihar , noting it recognised BCCI's public character but did not declare it a public authority under the RTI Act.
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, holding that the cricket body is neither established by law nor substantially financed or controlled by the government. The order, passed on Monday, 18 May, effectively bars citizens from seeking information from the BCCI through the RTI mechanism.
The Ruling and Its Legal Basis
Information Commissioner P.R. Ramesh dismissed a second appeal filed by Geeta Rani, who had sought details regarding the BCCI's authority to represent India in international cricket and its player-selection process. The Commissioner held that the statutory requirements under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act were not met in the BCCI's case.
'The BCCI cannot be classified as a Public Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and the provisions of the Act are therefore inapplicable to it in the facts and circumstances of the present case,' the CIC stated in its order.
How the Case Originated
The appeal stemmed from an RTI application filed in 2017 before the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, seeking information on the provisions under which the BCCI represents India internationally, government benefits extended to the body, and the extent of governmental oversight over it. The Centre responded that the information sought was not available with it and that the RTI application could not be transferred to the BCCI, as the body had not been declared a public authority under the Act.
BCCI's Stand and the CIC's Findings
Before the CIC, the BCCI argued that it is a private autonomous society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and does not satisfy the tests of ownership, control, or substantial financing required under Section 2(h). The Commission agreed, observing that the BCCI was not created by the Constitution, Parliament, a state legislature, or any government notification.
'Registration is only a mechanism for granting legal recognition to an entity formed by private individuals and does not amount to the body being brought into existence by the statute itself,' the CIC ruled. It further found no material on record to establish that the BCCI was substantially financed by the government, noting that the cricket body generates revenue independently through media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting agreements, and ticket sales.
Supreme Court Precedent Noted but Distinguished
The CIC also referenced the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, in which the apex court had introduced governance reforms through the Lodha Committee recommendations. Notably, the Commission observed that while the Supreme Court recognised the BCCI performs functions of a public character, it had not declared the body a 'public authority' under the RTI Act — a distinction the CIC treated as significant.
What the Order Means Going Forward
With the appeal dismissed as 'devoid of merit,' the CIC upheld the position that the burden to establish government ownership, control, or substantial financing of the BCCI had not been discharged by the appellant. The ruling reinforces the BCCI's long-standing claim to autonomy from statutory accountability frameworks, even as public interest in cricket governance remains high. Whether Parliament or the courts will revisit this question — particularly given the BCCI's effective monopoly over Indian cricket — remains to be seen.
Point of View
Manages billions in broadcast revenue, and wields quasi-regulatory power over the sport — yet remains beyond the reach of statutory transparency law. The Supreme Court's Lodha reforms acknowledged this public character; the RTI framework has consistently failed to follow through. India has a pattern of treating bodies as 'public' when it suits governance narratives and 'private' when accountability is demanded. The BCCI is perhaps the starkest example of that contradiction, and Parliament has shown no appetite to resolve it.
NationPress
3 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the CIC rule about the BCCI and the RTI Act?
The Central Information Commission ruled on 18 May that the BCCI does not qualify as a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, meaning citizens cannot seek information from it through the RTI mechanism. The CIC held that the BCCI is neither created by statute nor substantially financed or controlled by the government.
Why was the RTI application originally filed against the BCCI?
An RTI application was filed in 2017 before the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports seeking details on the provisions under which the BCCI represents India in international cricket, government benefits extended to it, and the extent of governmental control over the body. The case eventually reached the CIC as a second appeal.
What is Section 2(h) of the RTI Act?
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines 'public authority' as any authority or body established or constituted by the Constitution, Parliament, a state legislature, or by a government notification, or substantially financed by government funds. The CIC found the BCCI satisfied none of these conditions.
Did the Supreme Court ever address the BCCI's public character?
Yes. In the landmark case Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, the Supreme Court recognised that the BCCI performs functions of a public character and introduced governance reforms via the Lodha Committee. However, it did not declare the BCCI a 'public authority' under the RTI Act — a distinction the CIC relied upon in its latest order.
What happens now — can the BCCI be brought under RTI in the future?
The CIC's order closes this particular appeal, but the question could be revisited through fresh litigation or legislative action. Parliament would need to amend the RTI Act or pass separate legislation to bring bodies like the BCCI within its ambit. No such move is currently on the legislative agenda.
