Overturning its own 2018 order that had sought to bring the cricket governing body within the ambit of the transparency law, the central information commission (CIC) ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a 'public authority' under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, thus outside of RTI purview.
In an order passed on Monday, information commissioner PR Ramesh held that, although the BCCI performs important public functions relating to cricket administration and India’s participation in international tournaments, it cannot be classified as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act because it is neither owned, controlled nor substantially financed by the government.
“The BCCI cannot be classified as a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and the provisions of the Act are therefore inapplicable to it in the facts and circumstances of the present case,” the CIC says while dismissing an appeal seeking details on the legal basis under which the BCCI represents India and selects players for national and international cricket tournaments.
The latest order comes amid continuing debate over the accountability and transparency obligations of the country’s richest sports body, especially because the Indian cricket team officially represents the nation in global events despite the BCCI being registered as a private society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.
The controversy traces its roots to an RTI application filed in December 2017 by Geeta Rani who had sought information from the Union ministry of youth affairs and sports regarding the legal provisions under which the BCCI represents India and selects players for international tournaments.
She had also questioned whether cricketers selected by the BCCI are representing 'India' or 'BCCI' in international competitions and how a private association could represent the country in global cricket events.
According to
a July 2018 report by Moneylife, the ministry’s CPIO replied that the information was not available because the BCCI had not been declared a public authority and, therefore, the RTI application could not be transferred to it.
The matter eventually reached the CIC, where the then information commissioner prof M Sridhar Acharyulu observed during hearings that the RTI applicant had raised 'a very important issue regarding the status of the cricket team selected by BCCI'.
He had remarked that the question of whether it was 'Team India' or 'Team BCCI' raised issues relating to the BCCI’s exclusive authority to select a national team.
The 2018 CIC proceedings had also referred to several judicial pronouncements and recommendations from the Law Commission of India and the justice RM Lodha Committee, both of which had advocated bringing the BCCI under RTI to ensure greater transparency and accountability.
Moneylife had consistently argued in multiple reports that the BCCI should be brought under the RTI framework because of the public nature of its functions and the indirect support it receives from the state.
In
an August 2025 report, Moneylife noted that the proposed National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 initially sought to classify all recognised sports organisations as 'public authorities' under the RTI Act. This would have automatically included BCCI.
However, the sports ministry later amended the Bill to restrict the applicability of RTI only to sports organisations receiving government funding. The amendment effectively exempted BCCI after it was argued that the board receives no direct government funding.
Moneylife, however, questioned this reasoning, pointing out that the BCCI enjoys indirect state support through concessional access to government-owned stadiums and infrastructure, while the Indian cricket team is recognised as the national team.
The report also highlighted a series of legal and institutional developments supporting RTI applicability to BCCI.
Among them were the 2016 recommendations of the Lodha Committee following the Indian Premier League (IPL) controversies, which explicitly urged greater transparency in BCCI operations and recommended bringing it under RTI.
Similarly, the Law Commission’s 275th report in 2018 had argued that indirect state support, including tax exemptions and land grants, amounted to 'substantial financing', making BCCI effectively a public authority.
BCCI’s status under RTI has remained legally contentious for more than a decade.
In 2011, an RTI plea seeking information from BCCI was rejected on the grounds that it did not satisfy the definition of a public authority under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Subsequently, various CIC orders between 2017 and 2018 emphasised that the BCCI performed public functions and should voluntarily comply with transparency norms.
The October 2018 CIC ruling directing the BCCI to comply with RTI obligations was challenged before the Madras High Court, where the cricket board secured a stay order. The matter has since remained pending.
The latest CIC order now formally overturns the earlier 2018 position, potentially strengthening the BCCI’s long-standing argument that it remains a private autonomous body, despite its dominant role in Indian cricket administration.
Transparency activists and RTI campaigners are expected to closely examine the implications of the order, especially in the context of growing demands for accountability in sports governance and public institutions exercising monopoly control over nationally significant activities.
You may also want to read...
