BCCI and RTI: Is BCCI a Public Authority Under the RTI Act?

21 May 2026

The issue emerged when an RTI application questioned whether Board of Control for Cricket in India should be treated as a “Public Authority” under the RTI Act because:

It selects the Indian national cricket team.
It uses government stadiums and public infrastructure.
Governments provide security arrangements during matches.
Cricket involves massive public interest and national representation.

Initially, in 2018, the Central Information Commission held that the BCCI was a public authority. However, after judicial review and reconsideration based on earlier Supreme Court judgments, the CIC later concluded that BCCI is not a public authority under the RTI Act.

UPSC Online Preparation

Constitutional and Legal Concepts

What is the State?

Article 12 defines the term “State” for the purpose of enforcing Fundamental Rights.
It includes:
- Government of India
- Parliament
- State Governments
- State Legislatures
- Local Authorities
- “Other Authorities”

The central issue was whether BCCI could be classified as an “Other Authority.”

RTI Act vs Article 12

Difference Between “State” and “Public Authority”

Basis	Article 12	RTI Act Section 2(h)
Purpose	Enforcement of Fundamental Rights	Access to information and transparency
Nature	Constitutional concept	Statutory concept
Main Question	Whether a body is “State”	Whether a body is a “Public Authority”

Thus, a body may not be a “State” under Article 12 but may still fall within RTI if it satisfies the criteria of a public authority.

Important Supreme Court Judgments

Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India: Supreme Court’s View on BCCI
- The Court held that BCCI is not “State” under Article 12 because:
  - There is no government shareholding in the BCCI.
  - The government does not exercise day-to-day administrative control.
  - BCCI operates as an independent commercial entity.

Important Observation

Although the BCCI is not “State,” the Court acknowledged that it performs public functions connected with national cricket administration.

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib: Test to Determine “State”
- The Supreme Court laid down important parameters to determine whether a body qualifies as “State.”
- Key Parameters
  - Degree of Government Control
  - Extent of Government Funding
  - Nature of functions performed
  - Administrative domination by the State
  - Presence of deep and pervasive control

These principles later became important in deciding BCCI’s status.

UPSC Online Classes

BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar – Public Function Doctrine

Public Function Doctrine: In the BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2016) case, the Supreme Court clarified that even though BCCI is not considered “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, it still performs important public functions related to the administration of cricket in India.
- Therefore, the Court held that writ petitions can still be filed against BCCI under Article 226 before High Courts because bodies performing public duties are subject to judicial review.
- Significance: This judgment established that private organizations performing functions of significant public importance cannot completely escape constitutional scrutiny.
  - It reinforced the principle that constitutional remedies and judicial oversight may apply even to non-state entities when they discharge public functions affecting citizens and public interest.

RTI Act and Public Authority

Definition under Section 2(h)

Under the RTI Act, a body is considered a Public Authority if it is established or constituted by the Constitution, by a law made by Parliament, or by a law enacted by a State Legislature.
A body may also qualify as a public authority if it is owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government. In addition, NGOs receiving significant government funding can also fall within the ambit of the RTI Act.

Why was the Board of Control for Cricket in India held NOT to be a Public Authority?

BCCI is Not Created by Parliament: Registered Society, Not a Statutory Body
- The Central Information Commission observed that BCCI is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. However, it was not specifically created through a separate Act of Parliament. Therefore, the BCCI is not considered a statutory body.
- Important Distinction: A body that is created by law is regarded as a statutory body, whereas a body merely created under law is only a registered entity.
  - Since BCCI was only registered under an existing law and not directly established by Parliament, it was held to be merely a registered society and not a public authority.
Lack of Government Control: The CIC further noted that the government does not appoint BCCI office bearers or members.
- Elections within BCCI are conducted internally, and the government has no voting rights or veto powers in its functioning.
  - Therefore, the Commission concluded that there is no deep and pervasive governmental control over BCCI.
Lack of Government Financing: BCCI generates enormous revenue independently through IPL broadcasting rights, sponsorships, ticket sales, and media rights. Although governments provide security arrangements and occasionally public stadium facilities, such assistance was not considered “substantial financing.”
- Hence, BCCI was held to be financially autonomous and independent from government funding.

Recommendations for Bringing BCCI under RTI

Lodha Committee: The Lodha Committee recommended that BCCI should be brought under the RTI framework in order to improve transparency, accountability, and governance standards in cricket administration.
State-like Functions of BCCI: The Law Commission argued that BCCI performs several state-like functions because it regulates cricket in India, represents the country internationally, and exercises significant public influence. Therefore, it recommended that the BCCI should come within the RTI framework.
Governance and Transparency Issues: Critics argue that BCCI represents India in international cricket, uses public infrastructure, and indirectly influences national sports governance.
- Moreover, cricket in India involves enormous public interest, financial resources, and emotional investment from citizens. Therefore, many experts believe that transparency and accountability are essential in BCCI’s functioning.

Famous Expression

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

This phrase emphasizes that openness and transparency are the most effective tools to prevent corruption, arbitrariness, and misuse of power in institutions exercising significant public influence.

Click to Explore UPSC Offline Coaching

Conclusion

Although the BCCI has been held not to be a “State” under Article 12 and not a “Public Authority” under the RTI Act, it performs functions of immense public significance.
The debate reflects the larger constitutional tension between institutional autonomy and public accountability.
- Many experts argue that bodies exercising significant public influence should adopt higher standards of transparency, even if they technically fall outside RTI law.
Parliament may therefore consider an appropriate legal framework to balance autonomy with accountability in sports governance.