BCCI not a 'public authority', doesn't fall under RTI: Central Information Commission

New Delhi: The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will not fall under the Right to Information (RTI) regime, as it is not a ‘public authority’ set up by any law or has any substantial financing by the government, the Central Information Commission (CIC) said on Monday.

The order by Information Commissioner PR Ramesh came after the Madras High Court “remitted back” the issue to the CIC in September 2025 while hearing an appeal filed by the BCCI against a CIC order in October 2018 that held the cricketing body as a “public authority” that comes under RTI.

The order also came eight months after the union government dropped plans to bring sports bodies like BCCI out of the ambit of RTI by moving amendments to the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 to bring only sports bodies that receive government funds inside the transparency regime.

Reversing M Sridhar Acharyalu’s October 2018 order, Ramesh said the BCCI is an autonomous private body governed by its own rules and regulations and there is “no deep or pervasive” control exercised by the Government over the administration, management or affairs of the BCCI.

“Mere supervision or regulation by the State is insufficient to alter the private character of the organisation” to call it a public authority under the RTI, he said, adding that the government also has no role in the appointment of office-bearers or in its internal functioning.

Insisting that tax exemptions or statutory concessions available generally under law cannot be treated as “substantial financing” by the government within the meaning of the RTI Act, he said such things do not qualify unless the entity is dependent on them for survival.

“The BCCI generates its revenue independently through commercial activities like media rights, sponsorships, and ticket sales. It is financially self-sustaining and does not rely on government funds. Therefore, it cannot be said to be substantially financed by the state,” Ramesh said.

The order said BCCI, being registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and not under any statute, is only a “private association of individuals” and not owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government.

Ramesh said Income Tax exemption given to BCCI to fulfil the objective of promotion of cricket, which is "charitable in nature", did not arise from any special dispensation but available to entities pursuing charitable purposes as defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In ‘Obiter Dicta’ (remarks made in passing) in the order, he said the assumption that increased governmental supervision is sufficient to secure proper functioning of an organisation is intuitively appealing but is “overly simplistic and does not adequately account for the complexities” of modern economic institutions.

The BCCI's dominance is "rooted in the simple but powerful reality" that India constitutes the most commercially valuable cricket market in the world and at the heart of this economic structure lies the IPL, he said, adding this model and media rights regime have redefined the financial architecture of the sport.

Ramesh said the IPL accounts for a substantial portion of the BCCI’s revenues while other income sources include international media rights, sponsorship arrangements and its significant share in global revenues distributed by the International Cricket Council (ICC).

“This intricate and high-value ecosystem demonstrates that the functioning of such an organisation is shaped not merely by administrative oversight but by a complex interplay of market forces, contractual arrangements, and international commercial dynamics,” he said.

“To superimpose a model of oversight premised solely on governmental control may fail to account for these realities and could risk unintended consequences, including inefficiencies or disruptions in a finely balanced economic structure,” Ramesh said.

He said experience across sectors also suggests that the belief in regulation as an automatic guarantor of fairness is misplaced, as legislative and executive interventions – however well-intentioned – have produced outcomes marked by inefficiency, exclusion, or distortion, owing to challenges in implementation, lack of contextual sensitivity, or concentration of authority.

“Fairness, therefore, is not an inevitable byproduct of control; it is contingent upon transparency, accountability, and the careful calibration of regulatory mechanisms to the specific domain,” Ramesh said.

“...it may not be appropriate to proceed on the assumption that increased governmental supervision would, in and of itself, enhance the functioning or fairness of institutions such as the BCCI. The issue is not merely whether there should be oversight,but the nature, extent, and suitability of such oversight in light of the economic and structural realities involved,” he added.