Big verdict: No RTI for BCCI, rules CIC

The Board of Control for Cricket in India has been ruled exempt from the Right to Information Act, as the Central Information Commission determined it does not qualify as a 'public authority'.

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, 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 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.

Background of the RTI Ruling on BCCI

Central Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu held in 2018 that BCCI was a “public authority: under Section 2 (h) od the RTI Act and therefore amenable to the RTI regime. The order directed the BCCI to designate Public Information Officers and create a mechanism for receiving RTI applications.

BCCI challenged it in before the Madras High Court, contending that it was a private autonomous society not substantially funded or controlled by the government and therefore outside the ambit of the RTI Act.

The court did not decide whether BCCI was covered by the RTI Act. Instead it remitted the matter back to the CIC for a fresh examination.

The order issued on Monday:

The Central Information Commission, through an order passed by Information Commissioner P R Ramesh, has held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not fall within the ambit of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and therefore is not subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.

The matter was reconsidered pursuant to the directions issued by the Madras High Court in its order dated 17.09.2025 in W.P. No. 29615 of 2018, whereby the earlier order of the Commission dated 01.10.2018 was remitted for fresh adjudication in light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535.

In the detailed order,  PR Ramesh observed that the BCCI is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and is neither established by or under the Constitution nor created by any law enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature. The Commission further noted that the BCCI was not constituted through any government notification or executive order.

Relying upon authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court, including Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, and Dalco Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye, the Commission held that the BCCI does not satisfy the statutory requirements prescribed under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Reasons for BCCI's Exemption

• The BCCI is an autonomous private body governed by its own Rules and Regulations;

• There is no deep or pervasive control exercised by the Government over the administration, management, or affairs of the BCCI;

• The Government has no role in the appointment of office-bearers or in the internal functioning of the organization;

• The BCCI is financially independent and generates its revenues through media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting arrangements, ticket sales, and other commercial activities;

• Tax exemptions or statutory concessions available generally under law cannot be treated as “substantial financing” by the Government within the meaning of the RTI Act.