The Central Information Commission ruled on Monday that the BCCI is not required to respond to any inquiries under the transparency law since it is not a public authority under the Right to Information Act, reversing its own 2018 ruling in this regard.
Despite carrying out significant public duties pertaining to cricket administration and India’s participation in international competitions, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) cannot be regarded as a public authority since it is not owned, controlled, or significantly funded by the government, according to Information Commissioner PR Ramesh.
“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 ruling dismissing a request for information regarding the rules and powers that the BCCI uses to represent India and choose players for both domestic and international competitions.
The decision overturned a 2018 order issued by M Sridhar Acharyulu, a renowned law professor and information commissioner at the time, which declared BCCI to be a public authority and instructed its president, secretary, and committee of administrators to appoint central public information officers, assistant public information officers, and first appellate authorities in accordance with the RTI Act.
Additionally, the BCCI was instructed by the Central material Commission (CIC) to proactively release material under Section 4 of the statute and provide the RTI applicant with point-by-point responses.
However, the BCCI had challenged the 2018 order before the Madras High Court, which in September 2025 sent the case back to the CIC for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s observations in the BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar case. The court also stated that the Commission should issue new orders following a re-examination of the legal position.
Re-examining the matter, the CIC stated that the BCCI was not founded by the Constitution, Parliament, a state legislature, or a government announcement; rather, it is a private autonomous organization incorporated under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.
It stated that the cash from media rights, sponsorship arrangements, ticket sales, broadcasting agreements, and commercial cricket operations allows the cricket organization to operate freely.
“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.
The Commission stated, “The RTI Act does not include ‘public function’ as a criterion for determining a public authority,” rejecting the claim that the BCCI has a public authority character due to its involvement in choosing the national teams and regulating cricket in India.
The case began with a 2017 RTI request for information on the powers that the BCCI uses to represent India, choose players, and get government funding for security and infrastructure related to cricket.
In response, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports stated that it did not have the requested information and that the application could not be forwarded to the BCCI because it had not identified itself as a “public authority.”
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs Union of India and Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs State of Kerala were cited by the CIC in order to reach the conclusion that, unless an organization is heavily funded or controlled by the government, regulatory oversight or public importance alone does not meet the requirements of the RTI Act for a public authority.
