The Central Information Commission (CIC) on Monday ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not fall within the ambit of a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, holding that the cricket board remains an autonomous private body not substantially financed or controlled by the government, and cautioning that excessive regulatory control could disrupt its “finely balanced economic structure”.A policeman walks past the BCCI headquarters in Mumbai. (Reuters File)In a detailed order passed by Information Commissioner PR Ramesh, the Commission revisited the issue pursuant to directions issued by the Madras high court in September 2025, which had remitted the matter back to the CIC for fresh adjudication after reviewing a 2018 CIC ruling that had earlier declared the BCCI a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.The Commission held that the BCCI, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, was neither established by nor under the Constitution, nor created by a parliamentary or state legislation, nor constituted through any governmental notification or executive order.“Judicial precedents, statutory interpretation, and subsequent legislative developments consistently indicate that the BCCI is neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government,” held the CIC while dismissing the plea, filed by one Geeta Rani.Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Zee Telefilms Ltd Vs Union of India (2005), Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs State of Kerala (2013) and Dalco Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs Satish Prabhakar Padhye (2010), the CIC held that the statutory requirements under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act were mandatory and had not been satisfied in the case of the BCCI.To be sure, in the Zee Telefilms Ltd judgment, the Supreme Court had held that although the BCCI discharges significant public functions in regulating cricket in India, it does not qualify as “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution because of the absence of deep and pervasive governmental control over its affairs.The CIC on Monday followed this vies, as the order underscored that there was “no deep or pervasive control” exercised by the government over the BCCI’s administration or affairs, that the government had no role in appointment of its office-bearers, and that the board remained financially independent through revenues generated from broadcasting rights, sponsorships, ticket sales and commercial arrangements. “Mere supervision or regulation by the State is insufficient to alter the private character of the organization,” it noted.The Commission further clarified that tax exemptions or concessions available generally under law could not amount to “substantial financing” by the state under the RTI Act.It also observed that while the Supreme Court in the Board of Control for Cricket in India vs Cricket Association of Bihar (2016) had emphasised transparency and governance reforms in cricket administration, it had not declared the BCCI to be a public authority under the RTI law.Even as the top court approved and enforced the recommendations of the Lodha Committee in order to restructure cricket administration in the larger public interest, the CIC added: “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.”Mere public importance, regulatory supervision or discharge of public functions, the Commission stated, cannot substitute the statutory requirement as contemplated under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.The case arose from an RTI application filed before the ministry of youth affairs and sports seeking information concerning the BCCI. The ministry had responded that the information sought was not available with it and that the application could not be transferred to the BCCI since it had not been declared a public authority under the RTI Act.The CIC agreed with this position, observing that under the RTI framework, a public authority is obliged to furnish only such information as is “available, held or otherwise legally accessible” to it.In extensive obiter dicta accompanying the ruling, the Commission reflected on the economic structure of Indian cricket and warned against simplistic assumptions that greater governmental supervision would necessarily improve fairness or governance.“The evolution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India from a colonial-era administrative body into the financial epicentre of global cricket reflects one of the most significant transformations in contemporary sports economics,” said the CIC.The Commission pointed to the Indian Premier League’s franchise-based and media rights-driven structure, noting that the BCCI operates as a “largely autonomous, market-driven entity” with revenues running into “tens of thousands of crores”.It cautioned that imposing a model of oversight premised solely on governmental control “could risk unintended consequences, including inefficiencies or disruptions in a finely balanced economic structure.”The CIC further remarked that fairness in institutions is not an “inevitable by-product of control” but depends upon “transparency, accountability, and the careful calibration of regulatory mechanisms to the specific domain.”The ruling effectively overturns the practical effect of the CIC order of 2018 passed by then Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu, which had directed the BCCI to appoint Public Information Officers and establish an RTI compliance mechanism. It was this order that was challenged by the BCCI in the Madras high court, which sent the matter back to the CIC for a fresh decision in view of the Supreme Court’s 2016 judgment in the BCCI case.