The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will not be subject to provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, after the government introduced amendments to the National Sports Governance Bill that has been tabled in Parliament.
The union sports ministry has cited a provision of the RTI Act, according to which only bodies ‘substantially financed’ by the government can be defined as a ‘public authority’.
When the Bill was tabled in Parliament on July 23, it had a provision in Clause 15(2) that ensured that all sports bodies recognised by the National Sports Bill would be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005. However, The Indian Express has learnt that the clause stating, “a recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers under this Act,” has been omitted from the Bill via an amendment.
The omitted clause would have brought every national Sports Federation (NSF) under the RTI Act. The BCCI has always resisted coming under the purview of the Act arguing that it’s not dependent on government funds, unlike other sports governing bodies. The RTI Act defines a “public authority” as any institution or body created by any law made by Parliament or a State Legislature, including bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government, with ‘substantially financed’ being the key word in this case.
The amendment has introduced a new clause that states, “A recognised sports organisation, receiving grants or any other financial assistance from the Central Government under sub-section (1) or from a State Government, shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance.”
The change would mean that all NSFs will be under the RTI Act, but the only queries they are required to answer will be related only to government aid and other financial assistance, unlike the previous clause that allowed questions on duties and powers of the NSF, including selection.
“The amended clause will ensure that we don’t violate the RTI Act. With the amendment, we have defined a public authority as an entity relying on government funds and assistance. We have removed the grey area from the Bill that could have resulted in it getting held up or being challenged in court,” a sports ministry source told this paper.
Story continues below this ad
However, the BCCI will come under the purview of the Bill and can be questioned if there is any kind of government assistance involved.
“The BCCI will still come under the Bill and they will have to form an Ethics Commission, an Athletes Committee and implement the Safe Sports policy. They can also be questioned if government assistance of any kind is involved, like the usage of infrastructure,” the source said.
Another significant amendment in the Bill is that it has included the Societies Registration Act of a state as one of the criteria for recognition of an NSF.
Earlier Clause 8(2) stated, “No sports organisation shall be recognised under sub-section (1) unless such organisation is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or is a not-for-profit company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 or is a trust created under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.”
Story continues below this ad
Now the clause will also add the Societies Registration Act of a state bringing the BCCI under the purview of the Bill as it’s registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.
Sports minister Mansukh Mandaviya tabled two Bills in the monsoon session of Parliament — the National Sports Governance Bill and the National Anti-Doping (Amendment Bill). Both Bills are expected to be passed by the Lower House in the next couple of days.
In 2016, the Supreme Court-appointed RM Lodha Committee, looking into cricket reforms, had recommended bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act. While considering the recommendation, the apex court had referred the specific issue to the Law Commission in July 2016.
In its 275th report in 2018, the Law Commission too had recommended bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act. The Commission had underlined BCCI’s monopolistic character, the public nature of its functions, and the ‘substantial financing’ it has received from appropriate governments over the years (through tax exemptions, land grants, etc.) to hold that the cricket body can be termed a ‘public authority’ under the existing legal framework and brought within the purview of the RTI Act.
