Examine the basis on which a private body can be classified as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. Do you think the BCCI should fall within its ambit?

GS2 Accountable Governance
Examine the basis on which a private body can be classified as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. Do you think the BCCI should fall within its ambit?

Examine

  • 10 marks
  • 8 min
  • 150 words
  • Easy

The Hindu

Read article →

Introduction

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 seeks to promote transparency and accountability in institutions exercising public power. However, the status of private bodies performing significant public functions remains contentious. The debate became prominent in the context of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which exercises enormous influence over cricket administration despite being a private entity.

Basis for Classifying a Private Body as a “Public Authority”

Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines a public authority as any body that is:

  • Established by the Constitution, law, or government notification; or
  • Owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government.

A private body may also come under RTI indirectly if information relating to it is accessible through a public authority under any other law.

Key Tests Evolved Through Judicial Interpretation

Functional Test

Courts examine whether the body performs functions of public importance or governmental character.

  • In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981), the Supreme Court emphasized functional and administrative control in determining “State” status.

Control Test

  • Extent of governmental regulation, supervision, or deep and pervasive control is considered.
  • In Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank v. State of Kerala (2013), SC held that mere regulatory control is insufficient unless substantial financing exists.

Public Duty Principle

  • In Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005), SC held BCCI is not “State” under Article 12, but acknowledged its significant public functions.
  • In Cricket Association of Bihar v. BCCI (2015), SC held BCCI is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 due to its public duties.

Should BCCI Fall Within RTI Ambit?

Arguments in Favour

  • BCCI regulates a sport of national importance.

  • It selects the Indian national team and represents India internationally.

  • Enjoys monopolistic status and public resources such as stadiums, security, and tax concessions.

  • Transparency is necessary regarding:

    • Governance,
    • Selection processes,
    • Financial dealings,
    • Conflict of interest issues.

Arguments Against

  • BCCI is not substantially financed by the government.
  • Excessive state intervention may affect autonomy of sports bodies.
  • Commercial confidentiality concerns may arise.

Conclusion

Although BCCI may not fit the narrow structural definition under Section 2(h), its extensive public functions and monopolistic influence justify greater transparency obligations. In a modern democracy, accountability should depend not merely on ownership but on the nature and impact of functions performed in the public sphere.