New Delhi

The Central Information Commission on Monday ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005, overturning its own 2018 decision that had brought the cricket body within the ambit of the transparency legislation.

In a detailed order, Information Commissioner P. R. Ramesh held that although the BCCI performs significant public functions related to cricket administration and India’s participation in international competitions, it cannot be classified as a public authority because it is neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed by the government.

The commission said that under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the BCCI does not meet the legal requirements necessary to be subjected to the provisions of the transparency law, thereby making it exempt from responding to information requests under the Act in the present matter.

The ruling came while dismissing an appeal seeking information regarding the legal authority under which the BCCI represents India in international cricket and selects players for national and global tournaments.

The latest order reverses a landmark 2018 decision by then Information Commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu, who had held that the BCCI qualified as a public authority and had directed its office-bearers to appoint public information officers and comply with disclosure obligations under the RTI Act.

However, the BCCI had challenged that order before the Madras High Court, which in September 2025 sent the matter back to the CIC for fresh consideration in light of observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the BCCI versus Cricket Association of Bihar case.

Re-examining the issue, the commission observed that the BCCI is a private autonomous body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and was not created by the Constitution, Parliament, a state legislature, or any government notification.

It further noted that the cricket board operates independently through revenue generated from media rights, sponsorship agreements, ticket sales, broadcasting deals, and commercial cricket operations, with no direct government control over its finances, administration, or management.

Rejecting arguments that BCCI’s role in selecting India’s national cricket teams automatically gives it a public authority status, the commission clarified that performing a public function alone is not one of the criteria under the RTI Act.

READ MORE: Shahida Murtaza's academic research forms backbone of governments' policies

In arriving at its conclusion, the CIC relied on key judicial precedents, including the Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union of India and Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v. State of Kerala rulings, which held that public importance or regulatory oversight alone is insufficient unless an organisation is substantially controlled or financed by the state.