The Central Information Commission on Monday, May 18, held that the BCCI is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the law.

The order came in a case filed by a Delhi resident who had sought to know under what authority the BCCI selects players to represent India, why governments provide stadiums and police security to what is technically a private association, and whether the government exercises any legal control over cricket administration in India.

The CIC noted that the BCCI does not fall within the ambit of a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and dismissed the appeal filed in 2018 after the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports informed the applicant that the information sought was not available with it.

The legal framework 

The BCCI’s position outside the ambit of both “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act sits at the heart of the order.

Section 2(h) defines a “public authority” as “any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted” by the Constitution, laws made by Parliament or state legislatures, or government notifications. It also includes bodies that are “owned, controlled or substantially financed” by the government, including NGOs substantially financed by public funds.

Article 12 defines “State” to include the government and Parliament of India, state governments and legislatures, and “all local or other authorities” under the control of the government. Over the years, courts have expanded this definition through judicial interpretation, particularly in cases involving bodies performing public functions.

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025, which provides that sports bodies receiving grants from the government would be treated as public authorities under the RTI Act to the extent of utilisation of those funds. Since the BCCI receives no such grants, it falls outside this statutory extension.

The Lodha Committee had recommended bringing the BCCI under the RTI. The Law Commission, in its 275th report in 2018, also recommended that sports bodies performing public functions be brought within the ambit of the RTI Act, as it “exercises state like powers” and “virtually acts as a National Sports Federation”. But none of these recommendations translated into binding law.

An earlier CIC bench under Information Commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu had in 2018 held the BCCI to be a public authority and directed it to appoint CPIOs and disclose information under Section 4 of the RTI Act. The Madras High Court later set aside that order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in line with the Supreme Court order. The 2026 order is the result of that reconsideration.

On the registration of the BCCI: The RTI Act’s definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) covers bodies established under the Constitution or constituted through legislation or government notification. It also includes bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government.

The CIC held that the BCCI does not satisfy these conditions. It is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, “a private association of individuals which has obtained legal recognition through registration.”

The Commission said the RTI Act does not cover all entities “merely because they are registered under a statute”. The distinction, it held, is between a body created by statute and one merely governed by statute after being formed through private initiative.

For example, the State Bank of India exists because Parliament created it. The BCCI, on the other hand, exists because cricket administrators decided to form a board and subsequently registered it. Registration under the Societies Registration Act gives legal recognition, not statutory status.

On control over the BCCI: The more contested question was whether the government exercises enough control over the BCCI to bring it within the RTI framework.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v State of Kerala (2013), the Commission held that the “control” contemplated under Section 2(h) must be “substantial and pervasive” over management, policy, administration and financial affairs, not mere regulatory supervision.

The CIC found that the BCCI’s internal structure does not reflect governmental control. Its office bearers are elected internally under its own rules, no government nominee sits on its committees, and government approval is not required for its decisions. “The Rules and Regulations of the BCCI have neither any statutory force nor it has any statutory powers to make rules or regulations having statutory force,” the Commission noted.

The order states that “there exists no control of the Government over the functions, finance, administration, management and affairs of the BCCI” and therefore “the status of Public Authority cannot be given to the BCCI.”

On financing: Section 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act includes within the definition of “public authority” bodies that are “substantially financed” by the government. The Commission held that “substantial financing” means funding so significant that the body would struggle to exist without it, not incidental benefits or tax exemptions available to many entities.

The CIC noted that the BCCI generates its revenue independently through media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting agreements and ticket sales. It rejected the argument that the use of government-owned stadiums or police deployment during matches amounts to substantial government financing.

The constitutional foundation for the CIC’s reasoning lies in the Supreme Court’s 2005 judgment in Zee Telefilms Ltd v Union of India. In that case, a broadcaster had challenged the BCCI’s control over telecast rights, arguing that the Board should be treated as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.

The bench examined whether the BCCI was financially, functionally or administratively dominated by the government. It held that it was not, as the BCCI had no government shareholding nor did it receive any significant financial assistance from the state, and that its dominance over cricket arose from commercial reality.

Follow our daily newsletter so you never miss anything important. On Wednesday, we answer readers' questions.

The CIC’s 2026 order essentially transposes this reasoning from the constitutional plane of whether BCCI comes under the definition of State to the statutory plane of whether it comes under the definition of a public authority.

While the two operate in different contexts, both turn on a common principle that the government must exercise something more than ordinary regulatory supervision.

In 2016, the Supreme Court in BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar, arising out of the IPL spot-fixing and conflict-of-interest scandals, imposed sweeping governance reforms on the BCCI through the Lodha Committee recommendations. These included tenure limits, the one-state-one-vote principle, conflict-of-interest norms and structural governance reforms.

The Court held that even a body which is not “State” under Article 12 can still be subject to judicial review under Article 226 when it performs public functions. That distinction became central to the CIC order. Amenability to writ jurisdiction and classification as a “public authority” under the RTI Act are different legal questions operating under different statutory frameworks. This means that High Courts can interfere in the BCCI if it is found that their actions are arbitrary or against the public interest.