‘BCCI not a public authority under RTI Act’: CIC overturns its 2018 order
The Central Information Commission has ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not a public authority under the RTI Act, overturning its 2018 order. The decision shields BCCI from mandatory disclosures despite its public cricketing role
New Delhi: The BCCI is not a public authority under the Right to Information Act, thus it is not liable to answer any queries under the transparency law, the Central Information Commission held on Monday, overturning its own 2018 order in this regard.
Information Commissioner P R Ramesh said that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), despite performing important public functions relating to cricket administration and India’s representation in international tournaments, cannot be treated as a public authority as 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,” Ramesh said in the order, dismissing an appeal seeking information about the provisions and authority under which the BCCI represents India and selects players for national and international tournaments.
The current structure and functioning of the BCCI are broadly in line with other major cricket boards across the world, including those in England, Australia, South Africa, the West Indies and Pakistan, which operate as autonomous or private bodies outside the direct ambit of transparency laws, though many voluntarily disclose financial and administrative information.
The ruling marked a reversal of a 2018 order of the then-information commissioner and a noted law professor, M Sridhar Acharyulu, who held BCCI to be a public authority and directed its president, secretary and committee of administrators to designate central public information officers, assistant public information officers and first appellate authorities under the RTI Act.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) had also directed the BCCI to proactively disclose information under Section 4 of the law and furnish point-wise replies to the RTI applicant.
The BCCI, however, had challenged the 2018 order before the Madras High Court, which, in September 2025, remitted the matter back to the CIC for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s observations in the BCCI vs Cricket Association of Bihar case and said the Commission should pass fresh orders after re-examining the legal position.
Revisiting the issue, the CIC said that the BCCI is a private autonomous body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, which was not established by the Constitution, Parliament, a state legislature or through a government notification.
It said the cricket body functions independently through revenue generated from media rights, sponsorship deals, ticket sales, broadcasting agreements and commercial cricket operations.
“There exists no control of the government over the functions, finance, administration, management and affairs of the BCCI. Thus, the status of public authority cannot be given to the BCCI,” the Commission said.
Rejecting the argument that BCCI’s role in selecting the national teams and regulating cricket in India gives it a public authority character, the Commission said, “The RTI Act does not include ‘public function’ as a criterion for determining a public authority.” The case stemmed from a 2017 RTI application seeking details on the authority under which the BCCI represents India, selects players and enjoys government support for cricket infrastructure and security arrangements.
The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports had replied that the information sought was not available with it, and the application could not be transferred to the BCCI as it had not declared itself a ‘public authority’.
The CIC relied on Supreme Court rulings, including Zee Telefilms Ltd vs union of India and Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd vs State of Kerala, to conclude that mere regulatory oversight or public importance does not satisfy the RTI Act’s test for a public authority unless an organisation is substantially controlled or financed by the government.
