How the Sports Bill Was Bent to Please the BCCI
The original Sports Governance Bill would have brought all recognised sports bodies, including the BCCI, under the Right to Information Act. A last-minute amendment now limits RTI to only those receiving government funds — letting the BCCI off the hook. Critics call it a betrayal of transparency, shielding a billion-dollar private cricket empire from public scrutiny
A new law is about to be passed in India for sports administration. The word “Governance” has been added to its name, raising hopes of good governance. But even before the law is enacted, “sports governance” has been killed in the womb. The original bill brought bodies like the BCCI under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. But suddenly, an amendment was introduced to keep organisations like the BCCI out of the RTI’s scope. The Sports Ministry seems to have forgotten that without transparency, governance is impossible. The bill never directly mentions the BCCI, but everyone understood why this amendment was made before the law could even be passed.
Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya presented the “National Sports Governance Bill, 2025” in the Lok Sabha on 23 July. The bill will grant recognition to national sports bodies and regulate their functioning. Its aim is to ensure that sports organisations operate in a rules-based, transparent, and accountable manner. It proposes setting up a National Sports Governance Body, a National Sports Board, a National Sports Election Panel, and a National Sports Tribunal for the development of sports. There are provisions for a National Olympic Committee, a National Paralympic Committee, and national and regional federations for each sport, linked to their respective international bodies, with affiliated units at state and district levels.
How a Last-Minute Amendment Shielded the BCCI from RTI
The original bill stated that all recognised sports organisations would come under the RTI. Clause 15(2) of the bill tabled in the Lok Sabha on 23 July said: “All recognised sports organisations shall be deemed public authorities under the RTI Act.” This meant they would have to appoint Public Information Officers and provide information to citizens. Under this provision, the BCCI would have been covered by the RTI. But on 4 August, before any debate in the Lok Sabha, an amendment was made saying only sports bodies receiving government financial assistance would be deemed public authorities under the RTI Act.
Since the BCCI does not take any grants from the Sports Ministry or the government, it will not fall under the RTI because of this clause. However, it is important to note that this does not change the provisions of the original RTI Act. Under the RTI Act 2005, the BCCI is still considered a public authority and is bound to provide information. This has been made clear by the Central Information Commission (CIC). But using a stay order from the Madras High Court, the BCCI has so far refused to provide information, blocking the CIC’s decision. The fact is, the Board of Control for Cricket in India behaves as if it is above the country itself. The RTI, for it, is of no consequence.
Venkatesh Nayak, Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in New Delhi, who has been promoting awareness about RTI since it came into force, called the 4 August amendment to the “National Sports Governance Bill, 2025” unfortunate. He said that despite the recommendations of the Lodha Committee, appointed by the Supreme Court, and the Law Commission of India, the BCCI is being given an escape route from the RTI. But this will not be so easy.
Courts Have Already Said: The Right to Know Trumps Private Power
In the Kaushal Kishor vs UP Government case in January 2023, the Supreme Court said that the protection of fundamental rights to life and liberty also applies against private institutions. In two earlier cases, in 1988 and 2004, the Court recognised that the citizen’s right to know is part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, if the central government amends the sports governance bill in this way, affected citizens can file petitions in the High Courts to defend their right to know. The government will have to justify why such an amendment was necessary.
The BCCI’s refusal to provide information has been controversial for a long time. On 21 April 2010, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports declared all recognised national sports federations to be public authorities under the RTI Act. But the BCCI never even took recognition from the ministry as a national sports federation. This meant the ministry’s order did not apply to it. For reasons unknown, the Sports Ministry remained passive.
On 1 October 2018, the CIC, in an important ruling, declared that the BCCI falls under the RTI Act. It directed the BCCI to appoint Public Information Officers and provide information online and offline. The commission also asked the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to ensure compliance. But the BCCI challenged the CIC’s order in the Madras High Court, which stayed the order, preventing its implementation.
CIC Exposed the BCCI’s Public Nature — But the Courts Hit Pause
What did the CIC’s order say?
Applicant Geeta Rani had sought several pieces of information from the Sports Ministry about the BCCI. She asked: If the BCCI is a private body, on what basis does it represent India in domestic and international cricket? Who gave it the right to select players for the country? Is it “Team India” or “Team BCCI”? What benefit does the Government of India get from it?
When she received no information, the matter went to the CIC. The commission sought a reply from the ministry and clarified several points. For example, the Supreme Court and several High Courts have recognised the BCCI’s activities as public in nature, meaning it should be transparent and accountable to citizens. The CIC also cited the 275th report of the Law Commission of India, which said the BCCI’s functioning is of a public nature.
It regulates and manages cricket in India much like a government body would. Therefore, it should be brought under the RTI, even if it does not receive direct government grants, since it gets other forms of financial benefits such as income tax and customs duty exemptions, subsidised land, and use of government infrastructure. Without these concessions, the government would have earned significant revenue. The Law Commission also noted that BCCI-selected players use the national flag and emblem and that the BCCI nominates cricketers for the Arjuna Awards.
On this basis, the CIC ruled that the BCCI should be under the RTI and ordered it to provide the applicant with all requested information within ten days. Central Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu also directed the Sports Ministry to ensure compliance. But the Madras High Court stayed the order.
Cricket is linked to billions in business. How can such a massive enterprise be controlled by a private body? Why doesn’t the government set up its own national cricket board? If a new Indian cricket body represented the country at home and abroad, what status would the BCCI have left? Why is the Government of India bowing before a private organisation?
