The Central Information Commission (CIC) has determined that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not qualify as a "public authority" according to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This ruling effectively exempts the cricket organization from the transparency regulations that apply to government entities. Information Commissioner P R Ramesh issued this decision, reversing a 2018 ruling by former CIC chief M Sridhar Acharyulu, which had classified the BCCI as a public authority and mandated it to create a system for processing RTI requests.

The BCCI contested the earlier ruling, leading to the case being brought before the Madras High Court. In September 2025, the court directed the CIC to reassess the situation. The recent ruling now favors the BCCI.

In the order released on Tuesday, the CIC, led by Information Commissioner P R Ramesh, concluded that the BCCI does not meet the definition of "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. This decision was made following the Madras High Court's instructions from its September 17, 2025 ruling in W.P. No. 29615 of 2018, which called for a fresh evaluation based on the Supreme Court's observations in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2016) 8 SCC 535. Ramesh noted that the BCCI is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and is not established by the Constitution or any law passed by Parliament or state legislatures. Furthermore, the BCCI was not formed through any government notification or executive order.

The Commission referenced several Supreme Court rulings, including Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, and Dalco Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye, concluding that the BCCI does not fulfill the statutory criteria outlined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The BCCI operates as an independent private entity governed by its own regulations, with no significant government control over its operations, management, or affairs. The government does not influence the appointment of its officials or its internal processes. Additionally, the BCCI is financially self-sufficient, generating income through media rights, sponsorships, ticket sales, and other commercial ventures. The tax exemptions or legal concessions it receives do not equate to "substantial financing" by the government as defined by the RTI Act.

The Commission clarified that while the Supreme Court in the Cricket Association of Bihar case highlighted the need for transparency and governance reforms in cricket, it did not classify the BCCI as a "public authority" under the RTI Act. The recommendations from the Lodha Committee and the Law Commission regarding transparency in sports administration are advisory and do not supersede the explicit statutory framework of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

The CIC noted that the RTI application in question was submitted to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, which confirmed that the requested information was not available and could not be forwarded to the BCCI, as it had not been designated a public authority under the RTI Act. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the appeal, affirming that the RTI Act does not apply to the BCCI in this context.

Following the ruling, BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia expressed to the media, "Today marks a significant judgement from the Central Information Commission (CIC), clearly stating that the BCCI is not subject to the RTI Act. This has been our consistent position over the years in various forums, including the Supreme Court... I wholeheartedly welcome the CIC's decision today."