In a significant decision, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has declared that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not fall under the purview of a 'public authority' as defined by the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This ruling effectively exempts the BCCI, widely recognized as the world's wealthiest cricket organization, from the requirement of public disclosure under the Act.
The verdict, delivered by Information Commissioner PR Ramesh, brings to an end a prolonged legal and jurisdictional dispute that originated in 2018. Previously, then-Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu had classified the BCCI as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, instructing it to appoint Public Information Officers.
Background to the CIC's Decision
The BCCI challenged the 2018 directive in the Madras High Court, which subsequently referred the matter back to the Commission for a fresh assessment, taking into account relevant Supreme Court judgments. The recent order highlighted that the Board operates as a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Crucially, it was determined that the BCCI was neither established by constitutional provisions nor created by any specific law enacted by Parliament.
Arguments suggesting substantial government influence over the BCCI were also dismissed by the Commission. The ruling explicitly stated that there was no evidence of 'deep or pervasive control' exercised by the government over the Board’s administrative functions or internal operations. Furthermore, the Commission affirmed the BCCI's financial autonomy, noting that it generates revenue independently through media rights, sponsorships, and ticket sales.
Tax Exemptions and Supreme Court Observations
A key aspect of the CIC's reasoning involved the interpretation of government financing. The Commission ruled that any tax exemptions or statutory concessions provided under law do not constitute 'substantial financing' by the government within the framework of the RTI Act. This distinction is vital for determining whether an entity qualifies as a public authority.
While acknowledging that the Supreme Court had previously advocated for enhanced transparency in cricket administration, notably in cases like the Cricket Association of Bihar, the Commission pointed out that the apex court had not explicitly designated the BCCI as a public authority under the RTI Act itself.
This landmark ruling solidifies the BCCI's position outside the direct scrutiny of the Right to Information Act, impacting future calls for greater transparency in its operations.