Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner

Shri P R Ramesh

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.12.2017 seeking information on the following points:

“..Q.1. Under which provision / authority/ guidelines, BCCI has been representing India and selecting cricket players for our country India?

Q.2. Whether the players selected by BCCI, have been playing for our country (INDIA) or BCCI?

Q.3. Why Center. Government and State Governments have been providing infrastructure i. e. National Stadiums, Police, Securities & etc to BCCI to hold National International Cricket Tournaments in the name of India?

Q.4. How can BCCI (a private Association) represent our country in the National / international Cricket Tournament?

Q.5. What is benefit of Indian Government to give rights /authority to BCCI to represent our country in Domestic and International Tournament?

Q.6. Whether National Sports Authority of India or any Government authority of India has any legal concern /control on BCCI and conducted any Domestic and International Cricket Government?..etc…”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.12.2017 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“..1 to 12 Information sought is not available with the undersigned CPIO. BCCI has not declared itself as Public Authority. Hence, it is not possible to transfer the RTI application to BCCI. You may seek the information from BCCI directly, if you so desire…”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.01.2018 alleging that information sought was not provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 02.02.2018 observed as under:-

“..It is informed that the CPIO (Sports) has already provided available information to you vide this Ministry's letter dated 14.12.2017(copy enclosed).

2. The appeal stands disposed off…”

4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.04.2018.

5. The Second Appeal was decided by this Commission vide order dated 01.10.2028 and certain directions were passed against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Subsequently, the Board of Control for Cricket in India challenged the order dated 01.10.2028 before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P (C) No. 29615/2018. The Hon’ble High Court passed an order dated 17.09.2025 in W.P (C) No. 29615/2018, and remanded the matter to the CIC to pass appropriate orders in terms of guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar (2016 (8) SCC 535).

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:(28.04.2026)

Appellant: Not present

Respondent No.1: Shri Joginder Singh, CPIO, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports participated in the hearing.

Respondent No. 2: Shri Aditya Mehta, Advocate, Ms. Shivani Garg, Advocate, Shri Agneya Gopinath Advocate, Ms. Deeksha Dev Singh, Advocate, Shri Biswa Patnaik, Shri Melinda Colaco and Shri Prakhar Maheshwari, representatives of BCCI - participated in the hearing on behalf of Board of Control for Cricket in India, through video-conference.

6. The Appellant remained absent despite due service of hearing notice.

7. Shri Joginder Singh, CPIO stated that the information sought was not available in the official records. Accordingly, a reply dated was furnished to the Appellant in this regard as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

8. Shri Aditya Mehta, Advocate representing the BCCI submitted that under the RTI Act, 2005, information can be sought only from a “Public Authority” as defined under Section 2(h), and only such information can be disclosed as is available with or under the control of that authority. He stated that in the present case, the Ministry stated that the requested information was not available with it. Since the Board of Control for Cricket in India was not recognised as a National Sports