<p>Last week, India won the fifth Test against England at the Oval by six runs to level the series 2-2. On the same day, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) scored a bigger victory when the Union Government informed Parliament about its intention to amend the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 (NSG Bill), which is yet to be debated. One of these proposals will effectively keep BCCI out of the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Clause 15(2) in the original Bill, tabled in the Lok Sabha, was crafted to make all recognised sports organisations public authorities.</p><p>This would have included BCCI, but the Bill is being tweaked to keep only those recognised sports bodies that receive Central or State government funding under the RTI Act.</p><p>The BCCI has a long history of resisting transparency. In March 2010, all national sports federations receiving government grants of more than Rs 10 lakh were declared public authorities by the Union Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs. They were made liable to appoint public information officers and supply information about their functioning and finances in the manner of government offices. Claiming that it is a society registered in Tamil Nadu and headquartered in Mumbai, which receives no direct funding from any government, BCCI did not comply.</p><p>In the wake of the IPL betting scam, even the Supreme Court was of the view that it might be desirable to bring the BCCI under the RTI Act. The Court observed that the public at large has a right to know and demand information as to the activities and functions of BCCI, especially when it deals with funds related to those activities as a trustee of the people of India.</p><p>BCCI’s annual audited statements of accounts demonstrate its financial heft. Between 2014 and 2024, BCCI’s declared income added up to Rs 37,533 crore while its total expenditure during this period was Rs 16,041 crore. In 2023-24 alone, it earned an income of more than Rs 9,700 crore but spent only about Rs 1,704 crore. Yet, BCCI has described itself as a ‘non-profit making sporting organisation’ before the courts, more than once!</p><p>In earlier cases, while ruling that BCCI was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts, the Supreme Court took note of the monopolistic nature of the powers that it exercises over Indian cricket, saying it was akin to being an instrumentality of the State. Its all-pervasive control over cricketing as a profession, its formulation of rules, norms, and standards covering all aspects of the sport, and the selection of teams for national and international matches testify to the very public nature of its functions. Even though it may not receive funding directly from governments, by way of receiving tax and customs duty concessions, the use of public land and stadiums constructed by governments at nominal rent, etc. BCCI enjoys indirect financial support.</p><p>In 2015, the Justice RM Lodha Committee, appointed by the Supreme Court to manage its affairs, recommended that the legislature seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act. Acting upon the apex court’s advice, in 2018, the Law Commission of India wrote an entire report after studying the monopolistic character of BCCI’s functions and the substantial indirect financing it receives from governments, recommending that it be brought under the RTI Act. Later that year, the Central Information Commission declared it a public authority, but the Madras High Court stayed that order. BCCI has fought tooth and nail against every effort to make it directly answerable not only to cricket fans but to every citizen.</p><p>Whether Parliament will approve the proposal to keep BCCI out of the RTI Act remains to be seen. The Supreme Court’s judgement in the matter of Kaushal Kishore vs State of Uttar Pradesh might come to the aid of transparency advocates, if that happens.</p><p>A 5-Judge Constitution Bench unanimously held in 2023 that the fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced not only against the State and its instrumentalities but also against private entities.</p><p>The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the people’s right to know, which is the fulcrum of a functional democracy, is a part and parcel of these constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. In an appropriate case, BCCI can be hauled up before the judiciary to respect and fulfil the people’s right to know, if the government falters on the floor of Parliament.</p>
<p>Last week, India won the fifth Test against England at the Oval by six runs to level the series 2-2. On the same day, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) scored a bigger victory when the Union Government informed Parliament about its intention to amend the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 (NSG Bill), which is yet to be debated. One of these proposals will effectively keep BCCI out of the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Clause 15(2) in the original Bill, tabled in the Lok Sabha, was crafted to make all recognised sports organisations public authorities.</p><p>This would have included BCCI, but the Bill is being tweaked to keep only those recognised sports bodies that receive Central or State government funding under the RTI Act.</p><p>The BCCI has a long history of resisting transparency. In March 2010, all national sports federations receiving government grants of more than Rs 10 lakh were declared public authorities by the Union Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs. They were made liable to appoint public information officers and supply information about their functioning and finances in the manner of government offices. Claiming that it is a society registered in Tamil Nadu and headquartered in Mumbai, which receives no direct funding from any government, BCCI did not comply.</p><p>In the wake of the IPL betting scam, even the Supreme Court was of the view that it might be desirable to bring the BCCI under the RTI Act. The Court observed that the public at large has a right to know and demand information as to the activities and functions of BCCI, especially when it deals with funds related to those activities as a trustee of the people of India.</p><p>BCCI’s annual audited statements of accounts demonstrate its financial heft. Between 2014 and 2024, BCCI’s declared income added up to Rs 37,533 crore while its total expenditure during this period was Rs 16,041 crore. In 2023-24 alone, it earned an income of more than Rs 9,700 crore but spent only about Rs 1,704 crore. Yet, BCCI has described itself as a ‘non-profit making sporting organisation’ before the courts, more than once!</p><p>In earlier cases, while ruling that BCCI was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts, the Supreme Court took note of the monopolistic nature of the powers that it exercises over Indian cricket, saying it was akin to being an instrumentality of the State. Its all-pervasive control over cricketing as a profession, its formulation of rules, norms, and standards covering all aspects of the sport, and the selection of teams for national and international matches testify to the very public nature of its functions. Even though it may not receive funding directly from governments, by way of receiving tax and customs duty concessions, the use of public land and stadiums constructed by governments at nominal rent, etc. BCCI enjoys indirect financial support.</p><p>In 2015, the Justice RM Lodha Committee, appointed by the Supreme Court to manage its affairs, recommended that the legislature seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act. Acting upon the apex court’s advice, in 2018, the Law Commission of India wrote an entire report after studying the monopolistic character of BCCI’s functions and the substantial indirect financing it receives from governments, recommending that it be brought under the RTI Act. Later that year, the Central Information Commission declared it a public authority, but the Madras High Court stayed that order. BCCI has fought tooth and nail against every effort to make it directly answerable not only to cricket fans but to every citizen.</p><p>Whether Parliament will approve the proposal to keep BCCI out of the RTI Act remains to be seen. The Supreme Court’s judgement in the matter of Kaushal Kishore vs State of Uttar Pradesh might come to the aid of transparency advocates, if that happens.</p><p>A 5-Judge Constitution Bench unanimously held in 2023 that the fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced not only against the State and its instrumentalities but also against private entities.</p><p>The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the people’s right to know, which is the fulcrum of a functional democracy, is a part and parcel of these constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. In an appropriate case, BCCI can be hauled up before the judiciary to respect and fulfil the people’s right to know, if the government falters on the floor of Parliament.</p>
