The present matter arose from an application filed by one, Ms. Geeta Rani (“Appellant”), under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”), seeking certain information from the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports (“Ministry”) in relation to the BCCI. The Central Public Information Officer (“CPIO”) of the Ministry, in its reply stated that the information sought was not available with it, and that the RTI application could not be transferred to the BCCI, given that the BCCI had not been declared a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO’s response. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred a Second Appeal before the CIC.
In an earlier order passed in the year 2018 (“2018 Order”), the CIC had declared the BCCI to be a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, and issued certain directions against it. This order was thereafter challenged by the BCCI before the Hon’ble Madras High Court, in view of which the matter was remanded to the CIC.
CAM successfully represented the BCCI in the present remand- proceedings, where comprehensive arguments were advanced demonstrating that the BCCI does not meet any of the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, for being classified as a ‘public authority’.
Upon a detailed examination of the oral arguments advanced, as also supplemented by detailed written submissions filed in the matter, the CIC finally held that the BCCI does not satisfy any of the mandatory conditions contemplated under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
By its order dated 18th May 2026, the CIC dismissed the Second Appeal, inter alia ruling that the BCCI cannot be classified as a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, and that the provisions of the Act are inapplicable to it.
The team representing BCCI was led by Aditya Mehta, Partner; with support from Shivani Garg,Principal Associate; Agneya Gopinath, Senior Associate; and Deeksha Dev Singh, Associate.
