In a move that could reshape the landscape of sports governance in India, the latest draft of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, has dropped provisions that would have brought the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The revised draft narrows the definition of “public authority” to include only sports bodies receiving direct government funding a criterion the cash-rich cricket board does not meet.
The change, set to be debated in Parliament next week, is a significant reversal from the initial July draft, which would have subjected all recognised sports bodies to public scrutiny. The BCCI, the world’s wealthiest cricket board, has long resisted being classified as a public authority, despite repeated recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India, and the Central Information Commission (CIC).
Data Protection and DPDP Act Readiness: Hundreds of Senior Leaders Sign Up for CDPO Program
From Full Inclusion to Conditional Transparency
The initial version of the Bill sought to mandate that all recognised sports organisations fall under the RTI Act, ensuring open access to information on governance, finances, and decision-making. Clause 15(2) of that draft would have made the BCCI’s processes from team selection to broadcasting contracts subject to citizen queries.
However, the revised draft now ties RTI applicability to the receipt of direct government grants. Since the BCCI operates without direct financial aid, the amendment effectively shields it from mandatory disclosure requirements. The board remains legally registered as a private charitable society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and maintains organisational and financial independence from the Union Sports Ministry.
The Transparency Battle: Courts, Commissions, and Committees
This exemption marks the latest twist in a years-long battle over transparency in Indian cricket governance. In 2018, the Law Commission recommended classifying the BCCI as a public authority, citing its substantial indirect benefits from the state including tax exemptions worth over ₹2,100 crore and subsidised land leases for stadiums.
The Supreme Court, in multiple rulings, has also acknowledged the BCCI’s public role, noting its monopoly over national cricket, use of national symbols, and “tacit concurrence” from the government. The Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, appointed in 2015 to reform the BCCI, criticised its “closed door” functioning and urged Parliament to bring it under RTI for greater accountability.
The CIC followed suit in 2018, formally declaring the BCCI a public authority and directing it to process RTI queries. That order, however, was stayed by the Madras High Court, leaving the matter unresolved.
What RTI Could Change And What Is at Stake?
Transparency advocates argue that RTI coverage would empower citizens to scrutinise the board’s most consequential decisions from player selection and sponsorship deals to infrastructure projects and governance reforms. Critics contend that the BCCI’s monopoly over Indian cricket gives it a public character that warrants public oversight.
The government, however, maintains that the BCCI’s autonomy and lack of direct grants put it outside the RTI framework. Officials say the revised Bill still aims to align with global sports governance standards, especially as cricket prepares for its Olympic debut, but with “practical exceptions” for financially independent bodies.
For now, the exemption ensures that the BCCI’s internal workings will remain largely opaque, even as other national sports federations face new transparency obligations.
Critics warn the exemption undermines transparency, while government cites financial autonomy as grounds for exclusion