New Delhi, May 18, 2026
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, observing that the cricket body is neither established by law nor substantially financed or controlled by the government.
Information Commissioner P.R. Ramesh, while dismissing a second appeal filed by Geeta Rani seeking information regarding the BCCI’s authority to represent India in international cricket and select players for the national team, ruled that the statutory requirements under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act were not satisfied in the case of the BCCI.
“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 said in its order passed on Monday.
The apex information body was hearing an appeal arising from an RTI application filed in 2017 before the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports seeking details regarding the provisions under which the BCCI represents India, the benefits granted to it by the government, and the extent of governmental control over the cricket body.
The Centre had replied that the information sought was not available with it and stated that the RTI application could not be transferred to the BCCI since it had not been declared a public authority under the RTI Act.
In the proceedings 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) of the RTI Act.
In its order, the CIC observed that BCCI was not created by the Constitution, the Parliament, a state legislature or any government notification, but was merely a society registered under the law.
“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,” it ruled.
It further held that there was no material on record to show that the BCCI was substantially financed by the government.
The CIC recorded that the BCCI generates revenue independently through media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting agreements and ticket sales, and is financially self-sustaining.
“The BCCI functions independently of any governmental finance. Its revenues are generated wholly from its own activities,” the order said.
Also referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, where the apex court had introduced governance reforms in the cricket body through the Lodha Committee recommendations, the CIC noted that while the Supreme Court recognised that BCCI performs functions having a public character, it had not declared the body a “public authority” under the RTI Act.
Dismissing the appeal, the CIC held that the burden to establish that the BCCI was owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government had not been discharged by the appellant.
“In view of the aforementioned factual and legal position, the Commission upholds the submissions advanced by Respondents. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed,” the order said.(Agency)
FOLLOW NOW
