Admit Not Jeeves's Game Sense

The BCCI detests the RTI’s bind. Yet its very structure—the men who officiate in matches—stands on government patronage.

- Qaiser Mohammad Ali

FOR several years, the central government has been making an effort to bring the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, like all National Sports Federations (NSFs). But the Board has been steadfastly, even auda ciously, stonewalling the government, thanks to the full backing of politicians who have been—and still are—part of it. Successive dispensations, too, have never really been serious about implementing it.

While defying government RTI orders with disdain, the main thrust of BCCI’s defiance—and on which it has been harping unashamedly—has been that it doesn’t take financial assistance from the government. That is only partly true, as it does take indirect, ‘substantial assistance’, as the Delhi High Court observed some years ago and something the Union sports ministry, too, keeps insisting. And, crucially, the men who are the foundational support to the superstructure of BCCI-run tournaments—match officials who run things on the ground—are employees of government institutions. It’s a matter on which the BCCI conveniently, and consistently, keeps mum.

This April, The Law Commission of India (LCI) in a report prepared on directions of the Supreme Court, recommended that the RTI Act be made applicable to the BCCI and all its state affiliates. In addition, the Supreme Court has concluded, in the famous ‘BCCI versus Netaji Cricket Club (Chennai)’ case of 2005—and even in the Zee Telefilms vs Union of India case—that the Board “exercises enormous public functions” and “state-like functions”. These include selection of national teams that are fielded in global tournaments, with players/officials wearing the Indian national logo using the word ‘India’, which is part of the Emblem Act.