Information Commissioner P R Ramesh indicated that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), although engaged in significant public functions related to cricket administration and India’s representation in international events, cannot be classified as a public authority since it is not owned, controlled, or largely financed by the government.
“The BCCI does not meet the definition of a ‘public authority’ as outlined in Section 2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, thus the Act’s provisions are not applicable in this context,” Ramesh stated in the decision, dismissing an appeal that sought information regarding the framework and authority under which the BCCI represents India and selects players for national and international competitions.
This decision reverses a 2018 ruling by then-information commissioner and prominent law scholar M Sridhar Acharyulu, who had classified the BCCI as a public authority and instructed its president, secretary, and committee of administrators to appoint central public information officers, assistant public information officers, and first appellate authorities under the RTI Act.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) had also mandated the BCCI to proactively disclose information in accordance with Section 4 of the law and provide detailed responses to the RTI applicant.
Nonetheless, the BCCI contested the 2018 ruling in the Madras High Court, which, in September 2025, referred the case back to the CIC for reassessment in light of the Supreme Court’s remarks in the BCCI vs Cricket Association of Bihar case, directing the Commission to issue new orders after reviewing the legal context. In revisiting the matter, the CIC affirmed that the BCCI is a private autonomous entity registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, not established by the Constitution, Parliament, a state legislature, or via government notification.
It noted that the cricket body operates independently through revenues generated from media rights, sponsorships, ticket sales, broadcasting arrangements, and commercial cricket activities.
“There is no government control over the functions, finances, administration, management, and operations of the BCCI. Therefore, it cannot be designated as a public authority,” the Commission asserted.
Rejecting the notion that the BCCI’s involvement in selecting national teams and regulating cricket in India gives it public authority status, the Commission remarked, “The RTI Act does not recognize ‘public function’ as a criterion for defining a public authority.”
The case originated from a 2017 RTI application requesting details on the authority under which the BCCI represents India, selects players, and receives governmental support for cricket infrastructure and security measures.
The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports responded that the requested information was not available and that the application could not be forwarded to the BCCI as it had not officially declared itself a ‘public authority’.
The CIC relied on Supreme Court decisions, including Zee Telefilms Ltd vs Union of India and Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd vs State of Kerala, to conclude that mere regulatory oversight or public relevance does not meet the RTI Act’s criteria for a public authority unless an organization is significantly controlled or funded by the government.
