CIC Rules BCCI Not a Public Authority Under RTI Act; What It Means for Cricket Governance
मुख्य बातें
- •The Central Information Commission ruled on May 18, 2026, that the BCCI is not a public authority under the RTI Act.
- •The BCCI argued it is a private, autonomous body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.
- •The CIC relied on the Supreme Court’s 2005 *Zee Telefilms* judgment, stating the BCCI lacks sufficient government control to be considered ‘State’.
- •The Commission clarified that “substantial financing” under the RTI Act refers to critical financial support, not tax exemptions or indirect benefits.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) on May 18, 2026, ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not qualify as a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The decision came in an appeal filed by a Delhi resident in 2018, which was dismissed after the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports stated that the requested information was not available in its records. The BCCI, India’s apex cricket governing body, argued that it is a private, autonomous organization and therefore outside the RTI framework.
Under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, a “public authority” is defined as any authority established or constituted by the Constitution, laws enacted by Parliament or State legislatures, or through government notifications. It also includes entities “owned, controlled or substantially financed” by the government. The BCCI contended that as a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, it does not fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, which covers government bodies and authorities under government control.
