Central Information Commission (CIC): The Commission recently dealt with an appeal seeking information on the provisions/guidelines under which BCCI represents INDIA also whether the players selected by BCCI, play for India or BCCI?
The above appeal constituted the facts that the appellant had sought information primarily on whether the players selected by BCCI play for India or BCCI? And if so, how BCCI being a ‘private association’ represents India in the National and International cricket tournaments? The appellant was not satisfied with the response filed by the CPIO, which led him to approach the Commission.
Further, on dealing with the appeal filed, the Commission considered the issue on the ‘status of the Cricket team’ to be addressed on priority. The Apex Court and High Courts have expressed several times that the BCCI is directly related to the public activity which makes it accountable to the general public and answerable under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Therefore, on keeping the facts of the appeal in due consideration and in public interest, Commission considered its responsibility towards putting an end towards the prolonging dilemma on the non-transparency and unaccountability of the whole process.
On the same reasoning and grounds stated, Commission directed CPIO/authorised representative of BCCI to state an explanation on not declaring BCCI as ‘public authority’ even after several judicial pronouncements along with the recommendation in Law Commission’s 275th report. [Geeta Rani v. PIO, M/o Youth Affairs & Sports,2018 SCC OnLine CIC 1104, order dated 26-06-2018]
