New Delhi, May 18: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has 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. The commission stated that this cricket organization is neither established by law nor receives significant financial assistance from the government, nor is it under government control.
Information Commissioner P.R. Ramesh made this decision while dismissing an appeal filed by Geeta Rani. Rani sought information regarding BCCI’s authority to represent India in international cricket and its player selection process for the national team. The commissioner noted that the necessary legal criteria under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act are not met in BCCI’s case.
In an order issued on Monday, the CIC stated, “According to the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, BCCI cannot be classified as a ‘public authority.’ Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the current case, the provisions of this Act do not apply to BCCI.”
The CIC was hearing an appeal related to an RTI application filed in 2017 before the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. The application sought information about the provisions under which BCCI represents India, the benefits provided by the government, and the extent of government control over this cricket body.
The central government responded that the requested information was not available. It also clarified that the RTI application could not be transferred to BCCI, as it has not been declared a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act.
During the hearing, BCCI argued that it is a private autonomous body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. BCCI claimed it does not meet the criteria related to ownership, control, or substantial financial assistance as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
In its order, the CIC remarked that BCCI was not established by the Constitution, Parliament, any state legislature, or any government notification; rather, it is merely a society registered under the law.
The commission stated, “Registration is just a process through which legal recognition is granted to an organization formed by private individuals. It does not imply that the existence of that organization arose through any law.”
The commission also noted that there is no evidence on record to prove that BCCI receives any substantial financial assistance from the government. The CIC recorded that BCCI generates revenue independently through media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting agreements, and ticket sales, making it financially self-sufficient.
The order stated, “BCCI operates independently of any government funding. Its revenue comes entirely from its own activities.”
Additionally, referencing the historic Supreme Court ruling in the case of BCCI vs. Cricket Association of Bihar, where the apex court implemented governance reforms in the cricket body through the Lodha Committee’s recommendations, the CIC noted that while the Supreme Court acknowledged BCCI’s operations as having a public nature, it did not declare the organization a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act.
Dismissing the appeal, the CIC stated that the burden of proof regarding BCCI’s ownership, control, or substantial government funding was not met by the appellant.
The order concluded, “Considering the factual and legal situation presented, the commission accepts the arguments put forth by the respondents. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.”
My name is Narendra Jijhontiya. I am an experienced content writer with several years of expertise in the field. Currently, I contribute to Daily Kiran, creating engaging and informative content across a variety of categories including TECHNOLOGY, health, travel, education, and automobiles. My goal is to deliver accurate, insightful, and captivating information through my words to help readers stay informed and empowered.
Leave a Comment