Bat for the better: On the BCCI and the RTI Act

📌 Summary:

• Context: The Central Information Commission (CIC) recently ruled to exclude the BCCI from the ambit of the RTI Act, reversing an earlier order that had declared it a public authority

• Core argument: The editorial argues the BCCI — which has monopolised a national sport — should be brought within transparency obligations, and Section 2(h) of the RTI Act should be amended accordingly

• Arguments for exclusion: The BCCI is a private body operating commercially without direct public financing; RTI disclosures could expose competitive information, compromise governance flexibility, and let political forces abuse transparency to influence cricket administration; it already has anti-corruption measures and is subject to judicial review

• Arguments for inclusion (state-linked privileges): The BCCI benefits from national symbolism, police deployment at matches, concessional land allotments, State hospitality, public stadium infrastructure, the regulatory privileges of monopoly status, and negotiates with foreign boards in ways that overlap with diplomacy

• Legal history/precedents: Under Section 2(h) the BCCI is neither constitutional nor statutory and was not created by government notification — turning the question on state control/financing; the Supreme Court (2015-16, during the Lodha Committee reforms) repeatedly said the BCCI performs public duties; the Law Commission (2018) noted it functions as a National Sports Federation and received tax exemptions worth ₹2,100 crore in 1997-2007; former Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu had ruled it a public authority before the Madras HC stayed the order

• Key contradiction: Writ jurisdiction applies to the BCCI (as the Court affirmed in 2015), yet it is treated as private enough to conceal its internal records

• Solution proposed: Amend Section 2(h) to cover any body discharging public duties — especially with monopoly power — possibly via a new category that still protects the BCCI's commercial interests; courts must also treat tax exemptions as a form of state grant

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 (Governance — transparency and accountability); the case tests the boundaries of the RTI Act and whether bodies performing "public functions" without public financing should face public scrutiny.

📝 Prelims Facts:

• Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 defines "public authority"

• The Central Information Commission (CIC) is the apex appellate body under the RTI Act

• The Law Commission, in 2018, recommended bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act

• The BCCI received tax exemptions worth about ₹2,100 crore during 1997-2007

🔑 Key Term: Public authority — under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, any body constituted by/under the Constitution, by law, or by government notification, or one substantially financed or controlled by the government, which is therefore answerable to RTI requests.