The Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) cannot be treated as a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Commission said the BCCI is not owned, controlled or heavily funded by the government.
With this decision, the CIC rejected an appeal that had asked the BCCI to explain under what authority it represents India and selects players for national and international cricket tournaments.
ALSO READ: MS Dhoni Unlikely To Feature In CSK vs SRH Amid IPL Retirement Rumours; Check Details
Why BCCI ruled out of RTI act?
Information Commissioner P R Ramesh said in his order that the BCCI is a private and independent body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Because of this, it does not come under the definition of a public authority mentioned in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
“The BCCI cannot be classified as a public authority under the RTI Act, and therefore the Act does not apply to it in this case,” the order said.
When did the matter started?
The matter has been going on since 2018. Earlier, former Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu had ruled that the BCCI should be treated as a public authority and had asked it to appoint Public Information Officers under the RTI Act.
ALSO READ: ECB Questioned Over Jofra Archer's Stay In India For IPL Ahead Of Test Series Against New Zealand
ECB Questioned Over Jofra Archer's Stay In India For IPL Ahead Of Test Series Against New Zealand
The BCCI challenged that ruling in the Madras High Court. Later, the court sent the matter back to the CIC for a fresh hearing after considering Supreme Court judgments related to the issue.
In its latest ruling, the Commission said the BCCI does not meet the conditions required under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. It pointed out that the Board was neither created under the Constitution nor set up through any law passed by Parliament or a state legislature.
CIC's decision explained
The CIC also looked into the BCCI’s working structure, finances and its relationship with the government before giving its decision.
On the issue of government control, the Commission said there was no “deep or widespread control” by the government over the Board’s day-to-day functioning or internal matters.
The order also noted that the BCCI earns its own money through media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting deals and ticket sales, making it financially independent.
The Commission further clarified that tax benefits or other legal concessions given by the government cannot be considered as “substantial financing” under the RTI Act.
The case started after an RTI application questioned the legal basis on which the BCCI represents India in cricket and selects players for international tournaments despite being a private organisation.