The key essence of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, which has been recently passed in Parliament, is to monitor and standardise governance across all national sports federations for complete transparency in the welfare of sportspersons and dispute resolution.
To achieve this, the bill proposed the creation of a national sports board (NSB) to oversee recognition and accountability; a national sports tribunal, empowered with civil court jurisdiction and whose decisions can only be appealed to the Supreme Court and; formation of ethics commissions, athletes’ committees to cap the tenure of office bearers and; develop safe sports policies for the well-being of sportspersons.
At the outset, the National Sports Governance Bill’s Clause 15 (2) stated that: any “recognised sports organisation” would be deemed a “public authority” under the RTI Act, 2005; which obviously meant that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) would also be included.
Within a few days, and perhaps predictably too, the sports ministry made an amendment that only those sports organisations would be considered as public authorities if they are receiving funding from the government. The term `funding’ does not necessarily mean financial aid but also concessional or free land and infrastructure given by the government. BCCI uses government stadiums free of cost or at nominal cost and the Indian cricket team is declared as a national team.
The Lok Sabha cleared the amended bill on 11 August 2025
Strangely and funnily, it was declared that the BCCI is a privately registered society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and one that receives no direct government funding. Therefore, the BCCI is now exempted from coming under the ambit of the RTI Act in the amended bill. However, it has to register under the National Sports Federation (NSF), form ethics and athletics committees and implement safe sports policies; like all other national sports bodies. However, the BCCI has been given the privilege to remain tight-lipped if citizens demand accountability and transparency.
However, this argument is flawed and Moneylife has consistently written about how various authorities have ordered that the BCCI is a public authority to be brought under the RTI Act.
Legally…
- 2011: An RTI plea to the BCCI was denied; the information commissioner ruled that the BCCI doesn’t qualify under section 2(f) of the RTI Act (defining public authority). The court noted the BCCI is neither established by law nor funded by the government, reinforcing its private body status.
- 2016: The Lodha committee, as a sequel to the IPL scandals, urged increased transparency within the BCCI and explicitly recommended bringing it under the RTI Act, along with mandating disclosure of accounts, policies, and selection procedures.
- 2018: The law commission, led by justice BS Chauhan, recommended that the BCCI should come under the RTI Act. The commission argued that indirect government support—such as tax exemptions or land grants—qualifies as "substantial financing," making the BCCI a de facto public authority.
- 2017-2018: Initially, the central information commission had ruled that the BCCI does not come under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act but later in CIC orders of 2017–2018, the commissioners emphasised through written orders that the BCCI does come under the RTI Act and should voluntarily come under the RTI Act.
By RTI’s central information commission (CIC) order…
- October 2018: The CIC ruled that the BCCI qualifies as a public authority under RTI. It directed the BCCI to appoint central public information officers (CPIOs) and appellate authorities (AAs). However, the BCCI filed a challenge in the Madras High Court and obtained a stay, leaving the matter sub judice.
Excerpts of the CIC order regarding the BCCI:
Former CIC Prof Shridhar Acharyulu: During the CIC hearing on 10 July 2018, CIC Prof Sridhar Acharyulu observed that RTI applicant Geeta has raised “a very important issue regarding the status of the cricket team selected by the BCCI. Her question whether it is ‘a Team India’ or ‘Team BCCI’ raises an issue of exclusive authorisation of the BCCI to select a team for India.” He pointed out that “the apex court and other High Courts have expressed many a time that the BCCI performs a public function and it is straightaway related to public activity because of which the BCCI should be accountable to the public in general and in public interest.”
He further stated in his order that “There have been several doubts raised by the ministry of law and the ministry of youth affairs and sports, even after the recommendation of the law commission as to whether the BCCI does come under the purview of the RTI Act.”
The report of the justice Lodha panel on cricket reforms, recommended that the BCCI come under RTI:
Besides a string of recommendations to the Supreme Court, for cricket reforms in India, the three-member panel led by justice RM Lodha has also suggested to the legislature to consider bringing the BCCI under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and to ensure transparency in all its functions and dealings of money.
The report states, “The RTI Act enacts that public authorities shall make known the particulars of the facilities available to citizens. Having regard to the emphasis laid by the Supreme Court that the BCCI discharges public functions and also the court’s reference to indirect approval of the Central and state governments in activities, which has created a monopoly in the hands of the BCCI over cricket, the committee feels that the people of the country have a right to know details about the BCCI’s functions and activities. It is therefore recommended that the legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act.” (Read: Why BCCI needs to come under RTI https://www.moneylife.in/article/why-bcci-needs-to-come-under-rti/44877.html)
RTI activists like Subhash Chandra Agrawal have filed RTI petitions and knocked at the CIC doors, as the BCCI, they argued, was using several government-owned stadiums for cricket matches free of cost, or for a very nominal amount which amounted to "substantial funding" by the government.
However, heavy political influence (whichever government it may be) and an enormous amount of money keep the BCCI protected by the powers-that-be.
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)
