The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is covered under the RTI Act and answerable to the people of the country under its mechanism, the Central Information Commission ruled on Monday, 1 October.
The commission, the top appellate body in RTI matters, went through the law, orders of the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India report, submissions of the Central Public Information Officer in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to conclude that the status, nature and functional characteristics of the BCCI fulfil required conditions of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Section 2(h) of the Act defines criteria under which a body can be declared as public authority under the RTI Act.
The SC has also reaffirmed that the BCCI is the approved national-level body holding virtually monopoly rights to organize cricketing events in the country,” Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said in a 37-page long order.
He directed the president, secretary and Committee of Administrators to designate deserving officers as central public information officers, central assistant public information officers and first appellate authorities as required under the law.
Acharyulu also directed the BCCI to put in place, within 15 days, online and offline mechanisms to receive applications for information under the RTI Act.
The matter came up before him as the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports did not give a satisfactory response to an RTI applicant, Geeta Rani, who had sought to know the provisions and guidelines under which the BCCI has been representing India and selecting players for the national team.
Through the 12-pointer RTI application, she also asked whether the players selected by the BCCI are playing for India or for the association, how can a private body represent the country internationally, how’s the government benefiting from giving rights and authority to the BCCI to represent the country in international tournaments among others.
The ministry claimed it has no information available and the plea could not be transferred to the BCCI as the cricket board has not been declared a public authority under the RTI Act.
The BCCI sought more time for submission but Acharyulu rejected the demand, saying the cricketing body, having received notices from the CIC, neither appeared on dates of hearing nor gave any written submission.
The commissioner directed the BCCI to provide point-wise information sought by the appellant in this case, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order. “The BCCI should have been held accountable under all circumstances for any violations of basic human rights of the stake holders. As on today, there is no mechanism to question such violations, except filing a general writ petition in constitutional courts.”
Acharyulu said previously, most attempts at legal analysis have primarily relied on whether the body is funded by the state and/or uses state insignia and names.
He said while state funding is indeed one of the elements in determining whether a non-government organisation is a public authority , the economic and human rights impact of the body’s powers are dominant themes of the report and its recommendations.