CIC Rules BCCI Outside Ambit Of RTI Act
Why in the News ?
The Central Information Commission has ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the law.
CIC Decision and Legal Reasoning
● The CIC dismissed an appeal seeking information from the BCCI regarding player selection, government support, and administrative control.
● The Commission held that BCCI does not qualify as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
● It observed that BCCI is a private body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and not created by the Constitution or any parliamentary law.
● The CIC stated that mere registration under a statute does not automatically make an organisation a public authority.
● The ruling also noted that the government neither controls BCCI’s internal functioning nor appoints its office-bearers.
Issues of Funding and Government Control
● Petitioners argued that BCCI benefits from public resources such as police protection and government-owned stadiums.
● However, the CIC clarified that these facilities do not amount to “substantial financing” by the government.
● The Commission highlighted that the BCCI generates its own revenue through broadcasting rights, sponsorships, and cricket operations.
● Reference was made to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, where BCCI was held not to be a “State” under Article 12.
● Earlier recommendations by the Lodha Committee and the Law Commission to bring sports bodies under RTI have not yet become binding law.
| About RTI Act and Public Authority: ● The Right to Information Act, 2005 empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities to promote transparency and accountability. ● Under Section 2(h), a public authority includes bodies established by the Constitution, laws of Parliament, state legislatures, or substantially financed by the government. ● Article 12 of the Constitution defines “State” for the purpose of enforcing Fundamental Rights. ● Courts have expanded the interpretation of Article 12 through judicial decisions, especially for bodies performing public functions. ● Transparency in sports governance remains a debated issue due to the increasing commercial and public significance of sports organisations in India. |