New Delhi: A proposed amendment to the newly-introduced National Sports Governance Bill 2025 being circulated among Members of Parliament could put the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) outside the purview of the Right to Information Act since it doesn’t receive grants or financial assistance from the central or state governments.
The bill, which seeks to bring in reforms in governance of Indian sports bodies, was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 23 by Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya and is yet to be taken up for discussion in the House, amid a continuing stand-off over the Opposition’s demand over a discussion on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar.
The clause 15 (2) of the bill states, “A recognised sports organisation shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers under this Act.”
A new clause that is being inserted into the bill clarifies what constitutes a public authority. “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.” HT has seen a copy of the bill.
Under the RTI Act, a public authority is a body “established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Central Government or the Union Territory administration, the Central Government; or by the State Government.”
According to people aware of the development, “The amendment was done just to bring the bill in line with the RTI Act, 2005. BCCI might not take financial grants from the government but they do take government assistance such as infrastructure, subsidised land, state facilities, etc.”
The cash rich BCCI has long resisted being brought under the RTI Act. The powerful sports body never required government recognition as a National Sports Federation as BCCI manages its own finances. However, with cricket is now an Olympic sport as part of the 2028 Los Angeles Summer Games and the Bill is seen as part of preparatyions for making a bid to host the 2036 Games.
In 2018, Chief Information Commission (CIC) held the BCCI as the public authority under RTI Act, and put in place a system of online and offline mechanisms to receive applications for information under RTI Act. The Ministry of Youth And Sports Affairs was directed to take necessary steps to ensure implementation of this order. However, BCCI filed a writ petition in the Madras high court which granted a stay order.
BCCI will still have to be registered as a National Sports Federation and follow the provisions of the Bill. If the Bill becomes law, it will be the first time that BCCI will become a designated ‘NSF.’
BCCI will have to seek recognition from the National Sports Board (NSB) and refer its legal cases to the National Sports Tribunal, both proposed in the sports Bill. According to the Bill, the National Sports Board shall have the power to grant recognition to any sports organisation as ‘National Sports Body.’ The NSB can suspend or cancel recognition of the sports body or its affiliate units if the provisions of the act are violated or in case it “failed to hold elections for its Executive Committee or has committed” or there were “gross irregularities in the election procedures.”
It can also act if the federation “failed to publish annual audited accounts or misused, misapplied or misappropriated public funds.”
The NSB shall consult the respective global governing body before taking any such decision, stated the Bill.
There is another proposed amendment that states a person shall not be qualified to contest for election in a federation or seek nomination to the posts of the president, secretary general or treasurer unless previously served as a member for “at least one full term in the executive committee of the national sports body or as the president, or the secretary general or the treasurer in its affiliate unit.”
In the original Bill, the duration a person needed to serve for the top three posts was two full terms as member of the executive committee. This restrictive clause, however, doesn’t apply for the Sportsperson of Outstanding Merit (SOM), according to the proposed amendment.
