/images/ppid_59c68470-image-177907003394487819.webp)
The Central Information Commission has held the BCCI is not a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, keeping the cricket board outside mandatory disclosure rules and ending a legal dispute that began in 2018 over its transparency status.
The decision by Information Commissioner P.R. Ramesh overturns a 2018 order from then-Commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu, who had directed the BCCI to appoint Public Information Officers. The latest ruling states the Board does not meet the Act's Section 2(h) conditions.
The Commission stressed that the BCCI is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. It said the body was neither established by or under the Constitution nor created by any law passed by Parliament,
and therefore falls outside the RTI definition.
BCCI Autonomy, Control & Funding Issues
The order said there is no deep or pervasive control by the government over the BCCI's administration or internal functioning. It described the Board as a self-sustaining body, earning money from media rights, sponsorships, and ticket sales, without relying on government funds.
The Commission said tax exemptions or statutory concessions, when generally available under law, do not amount to substantial financing by the state under the RTI Act. It also noted that earlier Supreme Court calls for cricket transparency never declared the BCCI a public authority.
Market-Driven Cricket Structure
In detailed passing remarks, the Commission said the BCCI has grown from a colonial-era body into the financial epicentre of global cricket, due to the Indian market's commercial strength and the success of the Indian Premier League tournament.
The order warned against a simplistic belief that more government supervision always ensures fairness. P.R. Ramesh wrote that oversight based only on state control may ignore these market realities and risk inefficiencies or disruption in a finely balanced economic structure.
Case history and legal basis
The case reached the Commission after an RTI plea to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. The Ministry said it did not hold the requested data and could not transfer the application to the BCCI, which it viewed as a private organisation.
The BCCI had earlier challenged the 2018 CIC order in the Madras High Court. The court sent the matter back for fresh review, asking the Commission to consider Supreme Court rulings before deciding if the cricket board fit the RTI Act's public authority test.
Key Supreme Court references
The Commission relied on Supreme Court judgments in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India to support its view that the BCCI remains an autonomous private body under current law.
| Case | Court finding used by CIC |
|---|---|
| Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala | Clarified tests for substantial financing and government control |
| Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India | Considered BCCI's legal status and state control questions |
| Cricket Association of Bihar case | Stressed transparency in cricket, without labelling BCCI public authority |
The ruling states that bringing the BCCI under RTI would need a specific law change or executive order, since the present framework does not cover its structure. It says fairness in such high-value systems is better served by transparency, accountability, and careful regulatory design.
