Night watchman of the govt? CIC order shielding BCCI from RTI slammed

  

By Jag Jivan 

In a significant setback for transparency advocates, the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled on May 18, 2026, that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a "public authority" under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, reversing its own 2018 decision. The order has sparked sharp criticism from transparency activist Venkatesh Nayak, who has released a detailed critique accusing both the CIC and Union government ministries of acting as "night watchmen" to insulate the BCCI from public scrutiny.

The CIC’s latest decision, acting on a remand from the Madras High Court, found that the BCCI does not fit any criteria under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act—it is not established by the constitution or law, nor is it owned, controlled, or substantially financed by any government.

However, Nayak, Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, argues the ruling is procedurally flawed and ignores binding judicial observations. In a scathing analysis shared with media houses, he points out that the CIC selectively quoted the Supreme Court’s 2016 judgment in BCCI vs Cricket Association of Bihar, which had explicitly stated that the "public at large has a right to know" BCCI’s activities.

"The CIC completely ignores the Apex Court’s direction to the Law Commission as a 'first step towards bringing BCCI under the RTI Act'," Nayak stated. He termed the decision a "glaring example of judicial impropriety," noting that one Information Commissioner overruled a previous decision without a larger bench or public hearing.

The "Night Watchmen" Allegations

Nayak’s critique reveals a complex web of governmental inaction. Through a series of RTI interventions filed in 2025-2026, he claims to have uncovered that the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports had agreed in 2018 to declare BCCI a public authority based on the Law Commission’s 275th Report. Furthermore, a 2016 parliamentary response admitted that BCCI receives "substantial indirect funding" via tax concessions and subsidised land—a key criterion for RTI coverage.

"The Government of India had taken a decision to bring BCCI under the RTI Act. This is not reflected in the latest CIC order," Nayak said. He noted that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) claimed "no such information" existed, while the CBDT refused to disclose BCCI’s outstanding tax demands—over Rs. 1,300 crores in 2018—citing fiduciary confidentiality.

Tax Exemptions and the "Gentleman’s Game"

While the CIC noted BCCI’s claims of functioning without tax exemptions for two decades, Nayak highlights that the Bombay High Court in February 2025 ruled in BCCI’s favour on a key tax registration dispute, potentially freeing it from income tax obligations until a final merits hearing.

Nayak also criticized the newly enacted National Sports Governance Act (January 2026), which was amended to cover only government-funded bodies under the RTI—specifically excluding the cash-rich BCCI.

Nayak stated, "Cricket is often labelled as a ‘gentleman’s game’. But there is nothing ‘gentlemanly’ about the manner in which BCCI’s RTI coverage has been dealt with."

He has urged a constitutional challenge to the CIC’s order, which currently bars public access to information on BCCI’s finances, governance, and IPL earnings, despite the body enjoying a monopoly on the sport with tacit state approval.