Answer

Introduction

Though registered as a private society, the BCCI performs state-like and public functions by regulating cricket, selecting the national team, representing India internationally, and enjoying monopoly control over the country’s most popular sport. This raises important questions of transparency and accountability.

Body

Arguments Supporting the Inclusion of BCCI under the RTI Act

• Public Functions: BCCI performs functions closely linked to national representation and public interest like player selection to represent India in international cricket.
• Monopoly Status: BCCI exercises exclusive control over cricket governance in India without competition.
  Eg: In Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court acknowledged BCCI’s dominant position in cricket administration.
• State Support: The Board benefits from indirect public resources and governmental assistance.
  Eg: Use of government-owned stadiums and police deployment during cricket matches.
• Judicial Oversight: Courts have recognised BCCI’s amenability to judicial review due to public functions.
  Eg: In BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar (2016), the Supreme Court held that BCCI can be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
• Reform Recommendations: Multiple expert bodies recommended bringing BCCI under transparency laws.
  Eg: The Lodha Committee and the Law Commission’s 275th Report (2018) supported inclusion of sports bodies performing public functions under RTI.

Arguments Supporting the Exclusion of BCCI from the RTI Act

• Private Entity: BCCI is legally a private society and not a statutory body.
  Eg: The CIC held that BCCI is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and not created by statute.
• No State Control: Government does not exercise substantial or pervasive control over BCCI affairs.
  Eg: The CIC observed that no government nominees sit on BCCI committees and its office bearers are internally elected.
• Independent Finance: BCCI generates revenue independently without substantial government funding.
  Eg: The Board earns through media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting agreements, and ticket sales.
• Legal Threshold: Section 2(h) of the RTI Act requires ownership, control, or substantial financing by the government.
  Eg: In Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v State of Kerala (2013), the Supreme Court defined “control” as substantial and pervasive.
• Constitutional Position: The Supreme Court has already held that the BCCI is not a “State” under Article 12.
  Eg: In Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005), the Court ruled that BCCI lacks financial and administrative domination by government.

Way Forward

• Limited RTI: Bring sports bodies under RTI only for public-interest functions and state support.
  Eg: The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 extends RTI coverage to sports bodies receiving government grants.
• Statutory Framework: Enact a dedicated sports governance law ensuring transparency and accountability.
  Eg: The Lodha Committee recommended institutional reforms and transparency measures for BCCI governance.
• Financial Disclosure: Mandate disclosure of public resource utilisation and tax-related concessions.
• Independent Oversight: Create an autonomous sports regulatory authority for grievance redressal and ethics monitoring.
• Balanced Autonomy: Ensure transparency without undermining operational autonomy of sports bodies.
  Eg: Judicial review under Article 226 already balances accountability with institutional independence.

Conclusion

The BCCI controversy reflects the broader tension between private autonomy and public accountability in bodies performing state-like functions. A balanced transparency framework is essential to strengthen public trust, ethical governance, and democratic accountability in Indian sports administration.

DOWNLOAD PDF