A tale of four RTI interventions, CIC's shoddy umpiring, and how government bats and fields for BCCI

By Venkatesh Nayak* 

On 18 May, 2026, the Central Information Commission (CIC) issued a decision (see 1st attachment) holding that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not covered by The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The CIC was acting on the directions of the Hon. Madras High Court which had remanded back an earlier decision of the CIC (October 2018) where it was held that BCCI is a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. 

In the latest decision, the CIC has given a finding that the BCCI does not fit any of the criteria listed under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. In other words, it is not established by or under the Constitution or by any law made by Parliament or any of the State Legislatures or by a notification issued by any Government, nor is it owned, controlled or substantially financed by any government nor is it an NGO substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by any government. 

This despatch is not only a very detailed critique of the latest CIC decision but also demonstrates how various ministries and departments under the Union Government have seemingly become BCCI’s ‘night watchmen’ to insulate it from the regime of transparency established by the RTI Act.

Background

Readers will recall, in the wake of the allegations of corruption in BCCI's affairs, particularly relating to the betting scandal and spot-fixing allegations in cricket tournaments, the arrest of some players and the involvement of some owners of cricket teams, the Supreme Court of India appointed the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee in 2013 to inquire into the matter and submit a report. Subsequently, the Apex Court appointed the Justice Lodha Committee to examine that report and recommend implementable actions for, amongst other things, improving the management of BCCI. Later in 2016, the Supreme Court mooted the idea of bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act. In the matter of Board of Control for Cricket in India vs Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors., 2016 (8) SCC 535, the Apex Court stated as follows:

“82. We are not called upon in these proceedings to issue any direction in so far as the above aspect is concerned. All that we need say is that since BCCI discharges public functions and since those functions are in the nature of a monopoly in the hands of the BCCI with tacit State Government and Central Government approvals, the public at large has a right to know and demand information as to the activities and functions of the BCCI especially when it deals with funds collected in relation to those activities as a trustee of wherein the beneficiary happens to be the people of this country. As a possible first step in the direction in bringing BCCI under purview of Right to Information Act, we expect the Law Commission of India to examine the issue and make a suitable recommendation to the Government. Beyond that we do not consider it necessary to say anything at this stage." 

Strangely, in its 18th May order, the CIC completely ignores this important part of the judgement while selectively quoting from it to take this position at paragraph no. 46:

“However, a careful and contextual reading of the judgment demonstrates that the Court neither declared the BCCI to be a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution nor conclusively held it to be a “Public Authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005." 

Further, the CIC selectively summarises what in its view forms the core of the Apex Court’s 2016 judgement as follows:

"49. The directions/guidelines ultimately issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were therefore governance-oriented and regulatory in nature. These included reforms relating to age and tenure restrictions for office-bearers, the “one state one vote” principle, restrictions on ministerial and governmental interference, conflict-of-interest norms, transparency mechanisms, professional management structures, player representation, and institutional accountability. The Court approved and enforced the recommendations of the Lodha Committee in order to restructure cricket administration in the larger public interest.

50. Importantly, the judgment does not hold that the BCCI is financially dependent upon the Government or substantially financed by governmental funds. On the contrary, the BCCI’s financial structure was understood to be independently sustained through media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting revenues, ticketing, licensing, and commercial cricketing operations. The Court’s concerns related primarily to regulatory oversight, institutional reform and judicial review in light of the public functions discharged by the BCCI, and cannot be construed as a declaration that the BCCI constitutes a “Public Authority” under the RTI Act. It does not dilute the statutory requirements envisaged under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Mere public importance, regulatory supervision or discharge of public functions cannot substitute the statutory requirement as contemplated under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act." 

Further, the CIC dismisses the findings and the recommendations contained in the reports of the Lodha Committee and the Law Commission of India (LCI) in the following words:

“57. Committee reports, such as those of the Lodha Committee and the Law Commission, have recommended greater transparency and even suggested bringing the BCCI within the RTI regime. However, these reports are advisory in nature and do not have binding force. Importantly, even these bodies simultaneously acknowledged that any such extension would necessarily require legislative intervention and appropriate statutory incorporation. Significantly, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (supra) did not declare the BCCI to be a “Public Authority” under the RTI Act, but left the issue to the wisdom of the legislature.” 

Upon reading these paragraphs an inadequately informed reader is most likely to form an impression that neither the Apex Court nor the LCI declared the BCCI a public authority under the RTI Act. So the CIC has dealt with the matter de novo (as if there was no history to the issue) and found that BCCI is not covered by the RTI Act as it does not answer to any of the definitional criteria for a public authority mentioned in Section 2(h) of the Act.

However, a close reading of the Apex Court’s 2016 judgement reveals, nowhere did it leave, the issue of bringing BCCI to the wisdom of the legislature. That was only a recommendation of the Justice Lodha Committee which the Court merely cited without expressing its opinion on it. Instead, as cited above, the Court initiated the step of directing the LCI to examine the issue as the “first step towards bringing BCCI under the RTI Act”. With due respect to the CIC it must be said that the Apex Court’s views are misrepresented in its May 2026 decision.

The 275th Law Commission of India report on BCCI 

Nothing in its latest decision indicates that the CIC has seriously examined any part of the discussion in the LCI’s 100-page long report, before arriving at its own finding about the status of BCCI vis-à-vis the RTI Act. In its 275th Report on the Legal Framework: BCCI vis-á-vis Right to Information Act, 2005, submitted to the Union Law Minister in April 2018, the LCI had unequivocally recommended bringing BCCI under the ambit of the RTI Act in the following words (pages 99-100):

"(3) BCCI virtually acts as a National Sports Federation (NSF). Its own Memorandum of Association states that the Board’s objects and purposes are to control, improve quality, lay down policies pertaining to the game of cricket in India as well as select teams to represent India at international fora. Moreover, as per the statement made in the Lok Sabha, the Central Government has already been regarding BCCI as a National Sports Federation and hence, it is recommended that, for the removal of any doubt, the same be explicitly mentioned in the list of NSFs available on the ministry’s website. This express mention would automatically bring BCCI within the purview of RTI Act. Other sports bodies listed as NSFs’ in Annual Report 2016-17, of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports available on its website do attract the provisions of the RTI Act. This website also contains information regarding (Chief Public Information Officer) CPIOs and Appellate Authorities catering to RTI requests addressed to specific NSFs.

In light of the above stated facts, since all other sports bodies which are listed as NSFs are covered under the RTI Act, it is inconceivable as to why BCCI should be an exception.

(4) Additionally, it is recommended that RTI Act be made applicable to BCCI along with all of its constituent member cricketing associations, provided they fulfil the criteria applicable to BCCI, as discussed in this Report.

The Commission recommends accordingly."

In the April 2018 letter forwarding its report to the Union Law Minister, Justice B S Chauhan (retd.)  Chairperson, LCI categorically stated that BCCI did not respond/participate in its consultations “despite the service of notice and reminders thereon.”  

The CIC’s 2018 decision bringing BCCI under the RTI Act

Unlike the May 2026 decision, the October 2018 decision of the CIC not only examined the LCI's report on BCCI but also the internal deliberations within the Union Government as to what must be done with the LCI's recommendation to bring it under the RTI Act. Initially in June 2018, the Secretary Department of Sports wrote a letter to the then Secretary, Union Ministry of Law (who subsequently served as a Central Information Commissioner after retirement) stating as follows (see pages 19-20 of the second attachment):

"2. It has been observed from your letter that views of Ministry of Law Justice has not been communicated on the recommendations of Law Commission. It is also brought to your notice that previously when this Ministry had sought views of the Ministry of Law & Justice and declaring BCCI as a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005, it was opined that Section 2(h) of the RTI only defined the term ‘Public Authority’ and it does not empower the Government to declare any authority, body etc. as a public authority.

3. In light of the position explained above, I would be grateful if you could get the matter examined and advise us on this legal tenability and ramification of the recommendations of the Law Commission." 

Subsequently, in August 2018, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports wrote to the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice stating as follows (see pages 21-22 of the 2nd attachment):

“I am directed to refer to your Ministry’s D.O. No. IC-11/2/2018-Imp.Cell dated 09.05.2018 and a Note dated 13.07.2018 of Asstt. Legal Advisor of the Department of Legal Affairs, on the subject cited above. The Law Commission’s report has been examined in the Ministry. Based on the recommendations of the Law Commission the following has been decided:

i) The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports agrees with the recommendations that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) shall be declared as public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

ii) However, as regards the recommendations regarding inclusion of the BCCI in the list of National Sports Federations available on the website of the Ministry, the same has not been found feasible because the BCCI has not been given specific recognition by the Ministry. Inclusion of the BCCI in the list would entail the inclusion of many such sports bodies in the list of the Ministry. This may lead to legal and administrative complications. 

2. In view of above, further necessary action as per rules may kindly be taken under intimation to this Ministry.

This has the approval of Hon’ble MOS (IC) YA&S.” 

In other words, the Government of India had taken a decision to bring BCCI under the purview of the RTI Act. This is one of the factual bases on which the CIC ruled in October 2018 that BCCI is a public authority under the RTI Act. These developments also do not find mention in the latest CIC decision as the matter is dealt with de novo (as if the matter is being considered afresh, without any regard for what was decided in the past).

What happened to the LCI's recommendation and the Sports Ministry's Decision: A tale of three RTI Interventions

Having followed these developments as an advocator of transparency, I filed four RTI interventions in relation to BCCI’s coverage under the RTI Act, last year, with various Ministries and public authorities, to find out why was there a delay in implementing the LCI’s recommendations and who was responsible for it.

1st RTI Intervention with the Union Ministry of Law and Justice

As the LCI submitted its report to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to initiate action on its recommendations, I submitted an RTI application to them, in August 2025, seeking the following information:

"Apropos the forwarding of its Report No. 275 on the subject- Legal Framework: BCCI vis-a-vis Right to Information Act, 2005, by the Law Commission of India to the Hon. Union Minister for Law and Justice, on 18 April, 2018, I would like to obtain access to the following information from your Ministry in the form described at paragraph no. (II) below:

1) All correspondence and file notings and annexures to the same held by your Ministry in paper and/or electronic form which contain details of the action taken by your Ministry on the recommendations contained in Chapter 7 of the aforementioned report."

I sought inspection of the files and arrangement for making photocopies of the papers identified during the inspection.

Response of the Union Law Ministry

Strangely, the Department of Law and Justice shunted the RTI application to the LCI! LCI transferred it to the Department of Legal Affairs, Union Law Ministry. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Department of Legal Affairs did not bother to respond to the request for inspection of the documents. Instead, the CPIO sent copies of two letters from their records.

The first was a letter from the then Law Secretary (appointed later as a Central Information Commissioner, despite not submitting an application when vacancies were advertised) addressed to the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs on 09 May, 2018 forwarding a copy of the LCI's 275th Report for "examination and necessary action". The Law Secretary also stated at the end: "I shall be grateful if the decision regarding the implementation of the Report is communicated to us on priority". 

The second document supplied by the CPIO was a letter from the same Law Secretary addressed to the Secretary Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports forwarding the same LCI Report for action with a similar request for intimation of the decision on a priority basis (see 3rd attachment).The CPIO did not disclose any other records relating to the LCI report.

2nd RTI Intervention with the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs

Armed with the reply from the Department of Legal Affairs, I filed the next RTI application with the Department of Sports and Youth Affairs, in October 2025, seeking the following information:

"Apropos the reply and copy of the official document recently supplied by the Department of Legal Affairs (copy attached), Government of India, to me under the RTI Act, I would like to obtain the following information from your public authority under the RTI Act, 2005:

1) A legible copy of all official records held by your Department with regard to the action taken by your Department, till date, on the communication bearing D.O. No. IC-11/2/2018-Imp.Cell dated 09 May, 2018 received by the then Secretary, Union Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, Department of Sports, from the Law Secretary, Union Ministry of Law and Justice (copy attached), and

2) A legible copy of all file notings held by your Department with regard to the information described at paragraph no. (1) above."

Response of the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs

In November 2025, the CPIO, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports caused the following reply to be uploaded on the RTI Online Portal:

"Reply :- 1 to 2. The available information with the undersigned CPIO is attached- https://lawcommissionofi ndia.nic.in/report275/" (see 4th attachment)

It was quite obvious that the Ministry of Sports had not acted upon its own decision to recognise BCCI as a public authority under the RTI Act and shied away from admitting such inaction in an RTI response.

3rd RTI Intervention with the Department of Personnel and Training

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is the nodal Department for implementing the RTI Act across the Union Government. Surely, they might have had a role to play with regard to implementing the LCI's recommendations for bringing BCCI under the RTI Act. So, in October 2025, I sought the following information from the DoPT:

"Apropos the reply and copy of the official document recently supplied by the Department of Legal Affairs (copy attached), Government of India, to me under the RTI Act, I would like to obtain the following information from your public authority under the RTI Act, 2005:

1) A legible copy of all official records held by your Department with regard to the action taken by your Department, till date, on the communication bearing D.O. No. IC-11/2/2018-Imp.Cell dated 09 May, 2018 received by the then Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, from the Law Secretary, Union Ministry of Law and Justice (copy attached), and

2) A legible copy of all file notings held by your Department with regard to the information described at paragraph no. (1) above."

Response of the Department of Personnel and Training

In November 2025, the CPIO, DoPT disposed of the RTI application with the following online reply:

"No such information is available in the records of the answering CPIO." (see 5th attachment)

This is also a frank admission of the Union Government that the nodal department for RTI was not involved in the processes to act on the LCI’s recommendations and the Sports Ministry’s decision to bring BCCI under the ambit of the RTI Act. The DoPT is used more often to keep government agencies out under Section 24 of the Act but hardly ever to bring eligible private bodies bodis its ambit. 

4th RTI Intervention with the Central Board of Direct Taxes

Not only have all efforts to make BCCI directly answerable to the citizenry- on whose patronage it mints billions every year, but also the Union Government has repeatedly dodged questions about BCCI's tax liability. In December 2023,  MPs of the 17th Lok Sabha- Shri Mahesh Sahoo (BJD, Dhenkanal, Odisha) and the Late Shri M Selvaraj [CPI, Nagapattinam (SC), Tamil Nadu] sought to know, amongst other things, whether BCCI was claiming exemption from the obligation of paying income tax on its bountiful earnings (which the CIC admiringly takes note of in the obiter dicta towards the end of its May 2026 order) and whether the Government was aware of the total income earned on account of the IPL-2023 tournament.

The then Minister of State for Finance, Shri Pankaj Chaudhary responded as follows:

"(a), (b) and (c) BCCI is claiming exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, during assessment proceedings the exemption is being disallowed by the Income Tax department. The matter pertaining to tax exemption of BCCI is sub judice.

(d) and (e) In return of Income, instead of separate accounts for various activities, consolidated Income & Expenditure account/ Profit & Loss account is filed by a taxpayer. Moreover, return of income of financial year 2023-24 is not yet due and is thus not available." (see 6th attachment)

However, in earlier years the Union Finance Ministry was disclosing outstanding tax demand figures for BCCI. For example, in January 2019, the then Ministry of State for Finance Shri Shiv Pratap Shukla told the Lok Sabha in response to an Unstarred Question that a tax demand of Rs. 1,303.48 crores had been raised on BCCI in December 2018. However, the amount was yet to fall due for recovery, the Minister said (see 7th attachment).

Later in March 2020, the Minister of State for Finance, Shri Anurah Singh Thakur informed the Lok Sabha, in response to an Unstarred Question, that a tax demand of Rs. 572.36 cores had been raised against BCCI for the Assessment Year 2017-18. While BCCI had filed an appeal against this demand, 30% of the amount had been recovered. For the earlier Assessment Year of 2015-16, an amount of Rs. 178 crores had been recovered and an amount of Rs. 36.21 lakhs remained to be recovered. The Minister also stated that penalties imposed on the BCCI under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act remained pending for three assessment years: 2016-17: Rs. 71.14 crores, 2012-13: Rs. 59.40 crores and 2011-12: Rs. 4.30 crores. The Minister did not indicate whether these penalties had been recovered from BCCI or not (see 8th attachment). It may be recalled that Shri Thakur was the President of BCCI from 2016-17.

Based on the March 2020 Q&A, in December 2025, I filed an RTI application with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) seeking the following information:

"Apropos the answer tabled in the Lok Sabha to Unstarred Question No. 4725 on 23 March, 2020 on the subject: Outstanding Tax Demand of BCCI (copy attached) by the Hon. Minister of State in the Union Ministry of Finance, I would like to obtain the following information regarding the current outstanding tax demand pertaining to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) under the RTI Act, 2005:

1) The assessment year-wise outstanding amount of income tax in the case of BCCI, as on date,

2) The assessment year wise amount of outstanding income tax recovered from BCCI, till date,

3) The assessment year-wise amount of interest recovered from BCCI under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as on date,

4) The assessment year-wise amount of interest that is yet to be recovered from BCCI under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as on date,

5) The assessment years for which BCCI has filed an appeal against the tax demand which is pending, as on date,

6) The month and year of filing of each appeal described in paragraph no. (5) above and the designation of the authority before whom every such appeal is pending."

Response of the Central Board of Direct Taxes

As the CBDT did not furnish any reply until mid-February 2026, I submitted a first appeal against the silence. In March 2026, the CPIO of CBDT uploaded the following reply on the RTI Portal:

"The information sought by the applicant pertains to specific taxpayer-related details, including demand, recovery, interest liability, and litigation status in respect of a particular assessee. Such information is confidential in nature and forms part of the records maintained by the Income Tax Department in a fiduciary capacity.

In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 specifically governs the disclosure of information relating to assessees. As per the said provision, information relating to any assessee can be furnished only under circumstances and subject to conditions prescribed therein, and generally requires satisfaction of the competent authority that it is in public interest to do so. No such circumstance has been established in the present RTI application.

Further, under the RTI Act, 2005, the information sought is exempt from disclosure for the following reasons:

1. The details of tax demand, recovery, interest liability, and appellate proceedings constitute personal and financial information of a third party, disclosure of which has no direct relationship to any public activity or interest of the applicant. Hence, the same is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. 

2. The information is held by the Department in a fiduciary capacity, arising out of statutory compliance by the assessee, and is therefore exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.

3. The disclosure of such granular and assessment year-wise details may also prejudicially affect the economic interests of the concerned assessee and the confidentiality of tax administration processes, and therefore is not considered appropriate for disclosure in the absence of an overriding larger public interest.

It is also clarified that the RTI Act provides access only to such information which is permissible for disclosure under the law, and does not override the specific confidentiality provisions contained in the Income-tax Act, 1961.

In view of the above legal position, the information sought by the applicant cannot be furnished." (see 9th attachment)

BCCI’s Tax Payment Record

Before readers deduce based on the foregoing narrative that BCCI does not pay any taxes on its earnings, let me clarify the factual position. Many media reports either claim openly or hint indirectly that BCCI does not pay any taxes on its earnings. This is not correct.

In response to an Unstarred Question raised by the then MP Shri Anil Desai (Shiv Sena, Maharashtra), the Minister of State for Finance, Shri Pankaj Chaudhary told Rajya Sabha in August 2023 that BCCI had paid almost Rs. 4,300 crores by way of income tax between the financial years 2017-18 and 2021-22 (see 10th attachment). Further, in response to the Unstarred Question raised by sitting MP, Shri Sanjay Raut (Shiv Sena-UBT, Maharashtra), the same Minister informed the Rajya Sabha in August 2024, that the gross GST revenue collection from BCCI during the financial years 2022-24 was Rs. 2,038.55 crores (see 11th attachment). So, the CIC’s recording in its May 2026 order of BCCI’s claim that it has functioned effectively even in the absence of tax exemption since two decades is factual (see paragraph 41).

However, the CIC’s order does not go into the detail of BCCI’s tax travails or the outcome of its litigation against the Government’s income tax claims, adequately, which have a direct bearing on the question of its coverage under the RTI Act. Records available in the public domain show that BCCI applied for exemption from the payment of income tax claiming that it was registered as a society established under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, with the aim of “promoting sports”, particularly cricket. Exemption from the payment of income tax was granted to BCCI under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act in 1996.

However, BCCI’s tax travails began after it amended its Memorandum of Association (MoA) twice- in June 2006 and August 2007 but apparently failed to inform the Income Tax Department about these changes, for reasons best known to itself. Year after year, assessment officers refused to accept its claim for exemption from payment of income tax on this very ground of lack of formal intimation of the changes made to the MoA and issued tax demand notices running into hundreds of crores. As the questions answered in Parliament cited above, clearly indicate, BCCI has been paying some of its tax dues while appealing against the demand notices in several years.

However, in February, 2025, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court decided a writ petition in favour of BCCI holding that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in deciding an appeal brought before it by BCCI against a communication issued in December 2009. In that communication, the Assessing Officer told BCCI that the tax exemption registration granted under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act does not survive because of the modifications made to its MoA in 2006 and 2007 which BCCI failed to formally intimate the Department.

BCCI appealed against this communication before the ITAT. Strangely, the Revenue Department informed the ITAT and later on the Bombay High Court (in the matter of the writ petition) that the December 2009 communication did not have the effect of cancelling the exemption certificate. So, the ITAT decided that the appeal against the communication of the Assessing Officer was not maintainable because it did not amount to cancellation of the registration under Section 12A. Nevertheless, the ITAT had proceeded to examine the merits of the case and decided to uphold the 2009 communication of the Assessing Officer. It is by virtue of this order in appeal that BCCI was compelled to pay income tax year after year despite claiming exemption and opposing the demand notices.

So, the Bombay High Court ruled that when the ITAT had concluded that BCCI’s appeal against the 2009 communication was not maintainable because it had no adverse effect on the latter, it ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter and made observations virtually approving the 2009 communication. Consequently, the High Court set aside the ITAT’s finding regarding the contents of the 2009 communication while keeping open the merits of the matter with regard to cancellation of the registration for exemption. See The BCCI Etc. vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., Writ Petition No. 1898 of 2012, judgement dated 18/02/2025 (see 12th attachment).

In effect the Bombay High Court’s judgement frees BCCI from the obligation of payment of income tax until the merits of the case are decided by the competent authority in its favour. Nothing in the CIC’s May 2026 decision even remotely refers to this major development that impacts on the tax liability of BCCI. Before concluding it must also be pointed out in all fairness that BCCI has been making provisions in its finances for the payment of income tax for the years 2019-2025 pending the resolution of the taxation disputes (see Independent Auditor’s Report for 2024-25, para II.1.f.ii on page 4 of the 13th attachment).

Conclusion

The moot question that deserves to be raised which hardly any media outlet or writers commenting on the CIC’s latest decision have asked, is about the procedural correctness of one Information Commissioner overruling the decision of another Information Commissioner on the same issue and that too without examining any of its contents. This is a glaring example of judicial impropriety, to put it mildly. This matter ought to have been put before a larger Bench of the Commission for determination and better still, put the issue out for a public hearing to allow citizens and institutions to assist the Commission, as was the practice during the initial years of its existence.

The second procedural problem with this decision is the absence of the arguments of the Appellant in favour of bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act. The decision simply notes that the “Appellant remained absent despite due service of hearing notice”. It is not possible to hazard a guess about the reasons for the absence.  But the Commission ought to have made the minimal effort to examine the arguments presented not only in the 2018 decision of the CIC but also the reasoning contained in the Apex Court’s 2016 judgement and the very detailed analysis of BCCI’s status contained in LCI’s 275th report. As an Information Commission’s decision is binding under Section 19(7) of the RTI Act and no further appeal or review is possible within the four corners of this law, the CIC ought to have played the role of a neutral umpire and examined the very persuasive arguments contained in these documents. After all, the Apex Court’s judgement and the LCI’s report display sincere efforts of individuals with far more experience and knowledge of not only the core issues and the applicable laws but also the manner in which such disputes must be adjudicated.

Nevertheless, the May 2026 decision reads like it has been arrived at de novo i.e., on a clean slate. We will briefly examine the reasoning contained in the decision to show why it deserves to be set aside. Everything in this decision turns on the issue of whether the constitution, composition, status, working and finances of BCCI answer to any of the criteria given in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act for determining an entity as a ‘public authority’. There can be no quarrel with the CIC’s finding in the May 2026 decision that BCCI is not a body established by the Constitution or any central or state level legislation or a notification issued by any government. Nor is it owned or controlled by any government. 

However, the CIC’s latest decision does not examine whether BCCI is a body “established under the Constitution”- an important criterion contained in Section 2(h)(i) of the RTI Act. Enough materials are available in the BCCI judgement of the Apex Court from 2016 to show that even though the former does not qualify to be treated as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, it can be treated as “body established under the Constitution”. The Supreme Court noted as follows:

“82… All that we need say is that since BCCI discharges public functions and since those functions are in the nature of a monopoly in the hands of the BCCI with tacit State Government and Central Government approvals, the public at large has a right to know and demand information as to the activities and functions of the BCCI especially when it deals with funds collected in relation to those activities as a trustee of wherein the beneficiary happens to be the people of this country.” 

The LCI went a step further and actually returned a finding that BCCI must be treated as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution:

“7.1 The preceding chapters of this Report, with the aid of various tools of interpretation, binding precedents, judgements/decisions having a persuasive value, rules of construction and juristic writings, arrives at a conclusion that BCCI ought to be classified as ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. An analysis of the functioning of BCCI also shows that the Government does exercise control over its activities and functioning. As was argued in the Zee Telefilms case that BCCI, falling in line with the foreign policy of India, did not recognise a player from South Africa due to their practice of apartheid; and that the cricket matches between India and Pakistan in view of tense international relations were made subject to Government approval. The foregoing positions BCCI as a ‘limb of the state’, and it should, therefore, be held to be ‘State’."

In its May 2026 decision, the CIC has ignored all these arguments and findings in a cavalier manner by blandly stating that neither the Lodha Committee, nor the Apex Court nor the LCI have conclusively ruled that BCCI is a “public authority” under the RTI Act. If such a ruling had been issued, this matter would not have been brought before the CIC, would it? The petitioner would have filed a contempt case in the constitutional courts.

The other criterion for a body to be labelled a 'public authority', namely, an NGO which is substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the government, has also been dealt with by the CIC in the most unsatisfactory manner. The May 2026 decision selectively quotes from court judgements to give benefit to BCCI to remain outside the ambit of the RTI Act. Sadly, this is not even a ‘benefit of doubt’. For example, at paragraph 66 of its May 2026 decision, the CIC states as follows:

“It has been stated that neither Central Government nor the State Government release any funds to BCCI. Clearly there is no material to indicate that BCCI has been directly or indirectly funded by the appropriate Government, nor is there any evidence to indicate that any of the funds received by the BCCI owed their source to either the Central Government or the State Government.” 

Rather than simply place the blame on the absent petitioner for not placing “material to indicate that BCCI has been directly or indirectly funded by the appropriate government” it must be said that as the highest decision-making body under the RTI Act, the CIC ought to have done its homework. The LCI had examined the issue of “substantial financing” in its report and discovered the following:

“6.27 It may be accurate to say that the Central Government does not extend any direct financial assistance to BCCI, but it is also on record that it has been giving financial assistance in other forms and manner such as granting concessions in income tax, customs duty etc., providing land at excessively subsidised rates, among others.

6.28 It is on record that the State Governments have also provided land at subsidised rates, at many places to Cricket Associations (for example: The State of Himachal Pradesh allocated about fifty-thousand square metres land to Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association on a ninety-nine-year lease at Re. one per month)171 and that cumulatively, BCCI has enjoyed tax exemptions of thousands of crores. To be precise, between 1997-2007, the total tax exemption amounted to INR 21,683,237,489/- (INR Twenty-one billion six hundred eighty-three million two hundred thirty-seven thousand four hundred eighty-nine).172It may also be noted here that from 2007-2008 onwards, the registration of BCCI under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as a Charitable Trust, was withdrawn.” 

After examining the several judgements cited by the CIC also perfunctorily in its May 2026, decision, the LCI gave the following finding:

“6.30 It is also not necessary that the financing only be in the form of direct grants, funding etc., as has been held by the Courts and the CIC, in an array of cases, that tax exemptions/subsidies/ concessions, providing land at paltry lease amounts etc., all amount to indirect financing by the Government, rendering such impugned bodies as ‘public authorities’.

If the Government is foregoing a significant amount of money (in the form of tax or other levy), which otherwise would have been deposited in the National/State Exchequer, and would have been ‘public money’, it would qualify as indirect “substantial funding” by the Government. And, it would follow that the body/entity receiving such benefits would be a ‘public authority’, even though it may be a private, non-statutory or non-Government body, thereby putting such a body squarely within the purview of the RTI Act.

6.31 It is worth mentioning here that the Government, Central as well as the States, allowing the use of their infrastructure by BCCI, regularly at the time of events or even otherwise also tantamounts to ‘substantial financing’. It may be noted that the amount of revenue that can alternatively be generated by the Government from making available such infrastructure to any third party, on payment basis, makes the level of this financing particularly ‘substantial’.” 

In its May 2026 decision, the CIC cites a couple of paragraphs from the Apex Court’s judgement in the D.A.V. College Trust & Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions (2019) 9 SCC 185, to support its position that BCCI is not a public authority. In this case, the Apex Court made gave an important ruling which should have been applied to BCCI’s case if only if the CIC had cared to examine the paragraphs from the LCI’s report cited above. At paragraph no. 26, the Apex Court said:

“26. In our view, ‘substantial’ means a large portion. It does not necessarily have to mean a major portion or more than 50%. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. Substantial financing can be both direct or indirect. To give an example, if a land in a city is given free of cost or on heavy discount to hospitals, educational institutions or such other body, this in itself could also be substantial financing. The very establishment of such an institution, if it is 26. In our view, ‘substantial’ means a large portion. It does not necessarily have to mean a major portion or more than 50%. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. Substantial financing can be both direct or indirect. To give an example, if a land in a city is given free of cost or on heavy discount to hospitals, educational institutions or such other body, this in itself could also be substantial financing. The very establishment of such an institution, if it is dependent on the largesse of the State in getting the land at a cheap price, would mean that it is substantially financed. Merely because financial contribution of the State comes down during the actual funding, will not by itself mean that the indirect finance given is not to be taken into consideration. The value of the land will have to be evaluated not only on the date of allotment but even on the date when the question arises as to whether the said body or NGO is substantially financed.” 

If only if in its May 2026 decision the CIC had examined the sections from the LCI’s report cited above, it would have had to conduct a valuation of all the public lands that BCCI has been granted use of for free or at dirt cheap rates on lease at current market rates. Instead and rather strangely, that CIC makes this assertion:

“44. Furthermore, as per records BCCI does not own or occupy any land granted to it by the Central Government or any State Government at a subsidised/ nominal/ below market rate. There is no document placed on record which would show that BCCI itself, as a distinct legal entity, has received any land or infrastructure from the Government at a price that could even arguably amount to substantial financing.”

This assertion is problematic on at least two accounts. First, BCCI as a legal entity is not just its Apex Governing Council. According to BCCI’s Constitution it is a membership-based society. The cricket associations of each State, as recognised by BCCI, are its Full Members. So, as on date, 28 States and the UTs of Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir are represented by the respective cricket associations are its Full Members. Additionally, three other cricket associations each from Gujarat and Maharashtra which existed as full time members at the time of drawing up of BCCI’s Constitution continue to be Full Members. So, the public lands, stadiums, and other facilities extended to these Full Members will become substantial financing of BCCI itself because BCCI is primarily made of its constituent parts.

Second, in much the same way as the voice of the Appellant is absent from the CIC’s May 2026 decision, there is deafening silence over the arguments submitted by the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs. As mentioned in the 2018 decision of the CIC on this very issue (cited above), the Ministry had taken the decision to bring BCCI under the ambit of the RTI Act as a public authority based on the recommendations of the LCI acting under the directions of the Apex Court. Earlier in 2016, this very Ministry had admitted to Parliament that BCCI was indeed “substantially financed”. In response to a Starred Question raised by the then Lok Sabha MP Shri A T (Nana) Patil, (BJP, Jalgaon constituency, Maharashtra), about the steps taken by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to promote cricket across the country, the following para was appended to the statement that then Union Minister for Youth Affairs and Sports laid on the table of the House (see pages 1 and 9 of the 14th attachment):

“The Central Government does not extend any direct financial assistance to BCCI. But the Central Government has been granting concession in income tax, customs duty, etc to BCCI. The State Government also have provided land in many places of the country for cricket stadiums at concessional rates, much below the market prices. As such it can be very well be concluded that BCCI is getting substantial indirect funding from Government in the form of revenue forego. Further BCCI is performing the functions akin to State and also performing ‘public duties’ by selecting national team and representing India in International events.”

The CPIO of the Ministry is recorded as being present at the hearing conducted by the CIC on 28 April, 2026. Did the CPIO not present all the papers relating to not only the aforementioned Q&A? Was the record of internal deliberations of the Ministry leading to its decision to bring BCCI under the purview of the RTI Act from which the 2018 CIC decision cites extensively, not placed before the CIC? If not, should this not be treated as a serious case of negligence on the part of the CPIO to assist the CIC in making a sound and reasoned determination about the coverage of BCCI under the RTI Act? If on the other hand, the records had indeed been placed before the CIC in 2026, why were these evidentiary materials not considered while making the determination of BCCI’s status under the RTI Act? Both the Union Sports Ministry and the CIC owe us a detailed explanation.

Tweaking the National Sports Governance Bill

Before parting, it must also be pointed out that the ‘night watchmen’ bent over backwards to tweak the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. One of the beneficiaries seems to be BCCI. Soon after the notice for tabling the NSG Bill was circulated, it became apparent that BCCI, like all other national and state level sports federations. would not only be governed by its provisions upon enactment, but also become directly accountable to the people under the RTI Act. However, even before Parliament got the opportunity to discuss the Bill’s provisions, the Government moved an amendment to change the clause regarding coverage of the RTI Act for these sports bodies. The amendment as it stands as part of the NSG Act today [Section 14(2)], states that only such bodies which receive grants or financial assistance from the Central or State Governments would be considered as ‘public authorities’ under the RTI Act and that too only "to the extent of such financial assistance". So BCCI is left out of the ambit of RTI through the NAG Act. This Act came into force in January, 2026.

I sincerely hope the CIC’s latest decision is challenged in our constitutional courts and the issue of BCCI’s coverage is decided based on all available evidence and with due judicial rigour than what the CIC has applied in its latest decision. Cricket is often labelled as a ‘gentleman’s game’. But there is nothing ‘gentlemanly’ about the manner in which the issue of BCCI’s coverage under the RTI Act has been dealt with in recent years.

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Shri Sanjeev Gupta of Indore for sharing crucial materials that helped in crafting the RTI queries and for putting together this detailed critique.

---

*Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi/Bengaluru. Click HERE for all the 14 attachments