A fresh ruling by the Central Information Commission declaring the BCCI outside the ambit of the RTI Act has reignited a fierce debate over transparency, public accountability and the role of the government in shielding India’s richest sports body from scrutiny.
The latest decision of the Central Information Commission holding that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has triggered sharp criticism from transparency advocates and legal observers who argue that the order ignores crucial judicial observations, parliamentary records and previous government positions favouring greater public accountability for Indian cricket’s governing body.
In its order dated May 18, 2026, the CIC ruled that BCCI does not satisfy any of the criteria laid down under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission concluded that the cricket board was neither established by the Constitution nor by any law enacted by Parliament or state legislatures, and was not substantially financed, owned or controlled by the government.
The decision came after the Madras High Court remanded an earlier October 2018 CIC ruling that had declared BCCI a public authority under the RTI Act.
The fresh order, however, has been criticised by RTI activist Venkatest Nayak for allegedly disregarding key observations made by the Supreme Court of India in its landmark 2016 judgement in the BCCI reforms case, as well as recommendations made by the Law Commission of India in its 275th report.
CIC accused of selectively reading Supreme Court judgement
Nayak argues that the CIC selectively interpreted the Supreme Court’s 2016 judgement in Board of Control for Cricket in India vs Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors., where the apex court examined allegations of corruption, betting and spot-fixing in Indian cricket.
The Supreme Court had observed that BCCI discharged public functions and operated as a monopoly with tacit government approval, adding that citizens had a right to know about its activities and finances. The court had also asked the Law Commission to examine bringing BCCI under the RTI framework as a “possible first step”.
Despite this, the CIC stated in its May 2026 order that the Supreme Court neither declared BCCI to be “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution nor conclusively held it to be a public authority under the RTI Act.
The Commission further maintained that the apex court’s directions were primarily governance-oriented and focused on reforms such as conflict-of-interest rules, professional management, player representation and restrictions on political interference.
According to the CIC, BCCI’s financial independence through media rights, sponsorships, ticketing and broadcasting revenues also weakened arguments that it was substantially financed by the government.
Nayak, however, contend that the Commission ignored the wider constitutional and public accountability dimensions highlighted by the Supreme Court.
Law Commission report strongly backed RTI coverage
A major point of contention is the CIC’s treatment of the 275th report of the Law Commission submitted in April 2018.
The report had unequivocally recommended bringing BCCI under the RTI Act, arguing that the cricket board effectively functioned as a National Sports Federation and exercised monopoly control over cricket administration in India.
The Law Commission noted that other National Sports Federations were already subject to RTI obligations and questioned why BCCI should remain exempt.
It also argued that BCCI performed public duties akin to those of the State, including selecting the national cricket team and representing India internationally.
The Commission additionally pointed to indirect government financing through tax exemptions, subsidised land allotments and access to public infrastructure.
According to the report, between 1997 and 2007 alone, BCCI received tax exemptions amounting to over Rs 2,168 crore.
The Law Commission also cited instances where state governments provided land to cricket associations at nominal lease rates, including a Himachal Pradesh allotment of approximately 50,000 square metres for Re 1 per month.
Critics of the CIC ruling say none of these findings received serious examination in the May 2026 order.
2018 CIC ruling and government correspondence resurface
The controversy has also revived scrutiny of the CIC’s own October 2018 decision, which had held BCCI to be a public authority after examining both the Law Commission report and internal government communications.
Documents later obtained through RTI applications revealed that the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports had, in August 2018, agreed with the Law Commission’s recommendation that BCCI should be declared a public authority under the RTI Act.
An official communication from the ministry reportedly stated that the proposal had received approval from the Minister of State for Youth Affairs and Sports.
However, the ministry stopped short of formally listing BCCI as a National Sports Federation, citing potential legal and administrative complications.
The October 2018 CIC ruling had relied on these developments in deciding that BCCI fell within the RTI regime.
Nayak now argues that the latest CIC order treated the matter “de novo”, or as though no prior findings or institutional history existed.
RTI interventions reveal bureaucratic reluctance
A series of RTI applications filed in 2025 and 2026 with different ministries and departments has further fuelled allegations that parts of the Union Government were reluctant to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations.
Applications filed with the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Sports Ministry and the Department of Personnel and Training sought records relating to action taken on the Law Commission’s report.
While the Law Ministry supplied copies of correspondence forwarding the report for examination, the Sports Ministry largely redirected applicants to publicly available Law Commission documents.
The Department of Personnel and Training, the nodal agency for RTI implementation, reportedly stated that it held no records regarding action on the recommendations.
Nayak says the responses indicate a lack of institutional follow-up despite formal acknowledgement within government that BCCI could fall under RTI provisions.
Tax disputes and public financing arguments return to forefront
The CIC’s conclusion that BCCI was not substantially financed by the government has also come under challenge.
Nayak points to parliamentary records showing repeated government acknowledgements of indirect public financing through tax concessions, customs duty exemptions and subsidised land allocations.
In 2016, the Sports Ministry itself informed Parliament that BCCI received “substantial indirect funding” through revenue foregone by governments.
The issue of BCCI’s tax liabilities has also remained contentious.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes declined to disclose assessment-year-wise tax demands and recovery details in response to an RTI application filed in 2025, citing confidentiality provisions under the Income Tax Act and exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Yet parliamentary responses over the years have revealed major tax disputes involving the cricket board.
In 2019, the Finance Ministry disclosed that tax demands exceeding Rs 1,300 crore had been raised against BCCI. In 2020, additional tax demands and penalties running into hundreds of crores were also disclosed in Parliament.
At the same time, the government has clarified that BCCI does pay taxes. Parliament was informed in 2023 that the board paid nearly Rs 4,300 crore in income tax between 2017-18 and 2021-22. In 2024, the government disclosed that BCCI contributed more than Rs 2,038 crore in GST collections during financial years 2022-24.
Bombay High Court ruling adds new dimension
The debate has been further complicated by a February 2025 judgement of the Bombay High Court involving BCCI’s tax exemption status.
The court ruled in favour of BCCI in a dispute concerning the validity of its income tax exemption registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in examining the merits of a 2009 communication questioning BCCI’s exemption status after already concluding that the communication itself did not amount to formal cancellation of registration.
Observers say the judgement effectively eased BCCI’s immediate tax burden pending final adjudication of the exemption issue.
Nayak notes that the CIC’s May 2026 order made no reference to this development despite its relevance to questions of indirect state support and financial status.
Questions raised over procedural fairness
Beyond the substance of the ruling, legal commentators have also questioned the procedural propriety of one Information Commissioner effectively overturning another Commissioner’s earlier decision without constituting a larger bench.
Concerns have additionally been raised over the absence of the appellant during the hearing and the Commission’s alleged failure to independently examine earlier CIC findings, Supreme Court observations and Law Commission analysis.
Transparency activists argue that, given the binding nature of CIC decisions under Section 19(7) of the RTI Act, the Commission should have adopted a broader consultative approach before issuing a ruling with far-reaching implications for public accountability in Indian sport.
The latest order is expected to intensify legal and political debate over whether India’s most powerful sporting body – which selects the national cricket team, controls billions in revenue and operates with extensive public support – can continue to remain outside the country’s transparency regime.
