The Central Information Commission has held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the transparency law.
Information Commissioner P R Ramesh, in an order issued on Monday, said the BCCI performs important public functions related to cricket administration and India’s participation in international tournaments, but it cannot be classified as a public authority because 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,” the order stated while dismissing an appeal seeking details on the authority under which the board represents India and selects players for national and international tournaments.
The ruling reverses a 2018 CIC order passed by former information commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu, who had declared the BCCI a public authority and directed it to appoint public information officers and comply with disclosure obligations under the RTI Act.
The BCCI challenged that order before the Madras High Court, which in September 2025 sent the matter back to the CIC for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court observations in the BCCI versus Cricket Association of Bihar case.
Also read: IPL: BCCI bans 'unauthorised' guests in players' rooms
Re-examining the issue, the Commission observed that the BCCI is a private autonomous body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and was not created by the Constitution, Parliament, state legislature or any government notification.
The CIC further said the cricket board operates independently through revenue generated from media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting deals, ticket sales and commercial cricket activities, with no direct governmental control over its management or finances.
Rejecting arguments that BCCI’s role in regulating cricket and selecting the national team gives it the character of a public authority, the Commission clarified that “public function” alone is not a criterion under the RTI Act.
The case originated from a 2017 RTI application seeking details about the legal basis on which the BCCI represents India and receives government support in areas such as infrastructure and security arrangements.
Follow us
