For many Indian cricket fans, the debate around the BCCI staying outside the ambit of the Right to Information Act is not as emotionally explosive as it may appear in legal circles. The reasoning is simple. As long as Indian cricket remains successful, financially stable and globally dominant, many supporters are willing to trust the system running it. And compared to several other Indian sporting federations often accused of dysfunction, delays and administrative chaos, the BCCI is still viewed by many as one of the country’s most professionally managed sports bodies.
“For some of us, as long as India is doing well, it doesn’t really matter. And BCCI, as compared to other governing bodies in India, is way ahead. It is the only place where we are significantly dominating the global ecosystem. This cannot happen without good governance,” says one Indian sports fan, reflecting a sentiment shared quietly by many cricket followers.
That perspective is important because it reveals the complexity behind the RTI debate surrounding the Board of Control for Cricket in India. This is not simply a battle between transparency and secrecy. It is a debate between trust and enforceable accountability. Legally, the BCCI argues that it is not a government-controlled body and therefore does not qualify as a “public authority” under the RTI Act. But critics argue that the issue goes beyond technical legal classification.
The BCCI selects the Indian national team, regulates cricket across the country, oversees the IPL, benefits from public infrastructure and carries enormous influence over India’s most emotionally followed sport.
"The BCCI’s argument is legally technical: it says it is not created by statute, not owned by the Government, not controlled by the Government, and not substantially financed by the Government. Therefore, it claims it is not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act," said Rishabh Gandhi, former Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge, who now runs the law firm, Rishabh Gandhi and Advocates.
"But the difficulty is this: Indian cricket is not an ordinary private activity. The BCCI selects the team that represents India. It controls the national cricketing pathway. It exercises monopoly-like control over the sport. It benefits from public infrastructure, public order arrangements, tax treatment, public sentiment and national symbols."
"So the question is not merely whether BCCI is formally private. The deeper constitutional question is whether a body can perform overwhelmingly public functions and yet deny the public any enforceable right to ask questions," he argued.
In law, form matters. But in public accountability, substance must also matter. At the same time, even critics acknowledge that the BCCI’s administrative success cannot be ignored.
Under its watch, Indian cricket has become the financial epicentre of the sport globally. The IPL transformed player earnings, commercial opportunities and infrastructure standards. Unlike several federations dependent entirely on government support, the BCCI built a self-sustaining sports economy.
Sports business analyst Prashant Joglekar believes the issue is “tricky and double-edged.”
Source: India Latest News, Breaking News Today, Top News Headlines | Times Now
