[Author: Sahil Beniwal, student at Law at Dr. B R Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat, India]
Introduction
On 23 July 2024, the Hon’ble Union Minister for Youth Affairs and Sports, Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya, introduced the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 before the Parliament of India. The proposed legislation seeks to establish a comprehensive statutory framework to ensure the transparent, ethical, and accountable governance of National Sports Federations (“NSFs”), while simultaneously safeguarding the rights and welfare of athletes through provisions for safe sport practices and institutionalized grievance redressal mechanisms.
The Bill, which follows several unsuccessful attempts in the past to regulate sports governance through legislative means, aims to eliminate factionalism, political interference, and administrative arbitrariness, which have hitherto impeded the orderly development of sports infrastructure and athlete-centric policymaking in India. It aspires to cultivate a dispute-free, professional sporting environment and elevate governance standards in line with internationally recognised norms.
A salient feature of the legislation is its proposed alignment with the Olympic Charter and the Paralympic Charter, thereby facilitating India’s ambition to host major international sporting events, including a potential bid for the 2036 Olympic Games.
Significantly, the Bill adopts an athlete-first approach, envisaging a structural reform whereby athletes are not merely stakeholders but active participants in governance. To this end, all recognised NSFs, the Indian Olympic Association (‘IOA’) and the Paralympic Committee of India (‘PCI’), will be mandated to constitute Athletes’ Commissions. These bodies shall serve as legitimate platforms for sportspersons to voice concerns, contribute to policymaking, and influence administrative decisions. Furthermore, the Bill prescribes that each NSF’s Executive Committee shall compulsorily include two sportspersons of outstanding merit, thereby ensuring the integration of on-field experience in executive decision-making processes.
Of particular significance is the inclusion of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (‘BCCI’) within the purview of the Bill, treating it on par with other National Sports Federations. Upon enactment, the BCCI shall be required to seek annual recognition from the competent authority under the Act. Additionally, all existing and future legal disputes involving the BCCI shall fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the proposed National Sports Tribunal (‘NST’), a specialized adjudicatory body envisaged to ensure expeditious and expert resolution of sports-related disputes.
The BCCI: A legal Anomaly in Indian Sports Governance
BCCI occupies an exceptional position within the Indian sports landscape. Legally, it is a private entity registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. However, functionally, it exercises a level of authority that is more typical of a statutory or governmental body. It holds a de facto monopoly over cricket administration in India, managing everything from domestic tournaments and national team selection to international representation and broadcasting rights. Its immense financial clout and influence over international cricket further underline its outsized role.
Despite its private legal character, the BCCI has increasingly come under scrutiny for performing public functions. The issue of whether the BCCI qualifies as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, thereby making it subject to fundamental rights obligations, has been the subject of major constitutional litigation.
BCCI, under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, has been a matter of contention in various legal cases. These cases include Mohinder Amarnath & others v. BCCI, Ajay Jadeja v. Union of India, and Rahul Mehra And Anr. v. Union Of India before the Delhi High Court. Supreme Court decisions, such as BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors., Zee Telefilms Ltd & Anr v. Union India & Ors., and A.C. Muthiah v. BCCI & Anr., have also contributed to this discussion.
In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the BCCI does not fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12. The court applied a test from the Pradeep Kumar Biswas and concluded that the BCCI lacks financial, functional, and administrative control by the government, making it ineligible for classification as a State. The Court reasoned that the BCCI was neither created by statute nor substantially financed or controlled by the government. Nevertheless, it acknowledged that the BCCI performed functions of public importance, such as team selection and cricket promotion, which could invite judicial review on limited grounds.
The jurisprudential position evolved in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, where the Supreme Court observed that the BCCI exercised “monopolistic public functions”, particularly due to its control over representing India in international cricket. The Court held that such dominance and public character require the BCCI to act in accordance with principles of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness, even if it remains technically outside the definition of “State”.
Thus, the BCCI represents a legal anomaly, a private body wielding public powers, operating largely outside formal governmental oversight. This hybrid status has long shielded the BCCI from statutory accountability, making it a central target of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, which seeks to eliminate such regulatory blind spots.
Bill vis-à-vis BCCI: Legal and Structural Consequences
The Bill mandates that all NSFs, including the BCCI, must obtain annual recognition from the proposed National Sports Board (‘NSB’), a regulatory authority that shall be established once the bill becomes a binding statute. Recognition is not merely procedural but conditional upon compliance with a detailed code of governance, athlete representation, anti-doping policies, conflict-of-interest norms, and financial disclosures. Failure to comply could result in suspension or derecognition, thereby threatening the BCCI’s eligibility to represent India in international cricket or access government support and infrastructure.
The NSB is also empowered to frame rules and guidelines, binding upon all recognised federations. This rule-making power substantially reduces the BCCI’s long-held autonomy in determining its internal structure and operations, including selection processes, tenure limits, and voting rights. While the BCCI has previously resisted such structural intrusions on the grounds of functional independence and international standing, the statutory framework now leaves little room for discretionary governance.
A further critical provision is the conferment of exclusive jurisdiction on the NST over disputes concerning the governance, selection, ethics, and conduct of NSFs. This implies that all existing and future disputes involving the BCCI, whether inter-organizational or athlete-related, would be adjudicated not in civil courts, but before a dedicated quasi-judicial tribunal, in accordance with Section 20 – 25 of the Bill. It must be noted that the NST’s jurisdiction shall not extend to, (a) any dispute, or conflict arising during the Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, or any other similar events organised by any International Federations; (b) any dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of – (i) the internal disputes resolution committee of a National Sports Body; or (ii) any other tribunal or court; or (iii) any International Federation; or (iv) the Court of Arbitration for Sports established in Lausanne, Switzerland; (c) doping related disputes, where Disciplinary Panels constituted under the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022 have exclusive jurisdiction; (d) any matter in respect of which the International Charters and Statutes require the parties to submit to specific mechanism or forum for adjudication. All in all, civil courts’ jurisdiction shall be categorically excluded. This institutional shift is likely to accelerate the resolution of long-pending disputes but may also be challenged for encroaching upon the BCCI’s traditional litigation strategies and forum choices.
Perhaps the most contentious implication lies in the potential application of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the BCCI. Previously, the BCCI did not classify itself as a public body or NSF, thereby opposing government attempts to oversee its operations. Although the Central Information Commission in 2018 held the BCCI to be a “public authority,” the decision was never implemented. The Bill’s emphasis on transparency and use of public resources may revive this debate. If enforced, RTI compliance would expose BCCI’s internal functioning, contracts, selection rationale, and sponsorship deals to public scrutiny.
Additionally, where NSFs utilise government funding or public infrastructure, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India would have the authority to audit their accounts. Given that the BCCI often uses state-owned stadiums and avails tax exemptions, it may well fall within this audit ambit, thereby undermining its fiscal opacity.
In essence, the Bill redefines the BCCI’s relationship with the Indian state, from an autonomous body with quasi-public functions to a regulated entity accountable to statutory norms. This transition will have far-reaching consequences for its operational independence, legal strategies, and governance ethos.
Conclusion
The National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 represents a moment of reckoning in India’s sporting landscape. Its provisions, spanning mandatory recognition, athlete representation, dispute resolution through a dedicated tribunal, and enhanced transparency obligations, are designed to bring about a systemic transformation in the governance of NSFs. At the centre of this shift lies the BCCI, an institution that has long functioned with unrivalled autonomy and minimal regulatory oversight despite exercising public functions.
The Bill’s impact on the BCCI is both profound and far-reaching. By classifying the BCCI as an NSF, mandating annual recognition, and subjecting it to statutory rules framed by the proposed NSB, the legislation signals a move toward structural parity across sports federations. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the NST and the possibility of oversight through RTI and CAG audits underline the government’s intent to impose clear standards of accountability, transparency, and ethical governance on even the most powerful sporting bodies.
However, this legislative shift should not be misconstrued as the end of the BCCI’s autonomy. Rather, it is a redefinition of autonomy within the bounds of the rule of law and constitutional values. Autonomy in a democratic setup cannot imply immunity from public accountability, especially when a body exercises public functions, utilizes public resources, and claims to represent the nation on an international platform.
Going forward, the BCCI must embrace this evolving governance framework not as a threat, but as an opportunity, to reform, to professionalize, and to reclaim public trust. Its resistance to reform can no longer be sustained on claims of historical exceptionalism or sporting sovereignty.
Ultimately, the future of cricket governance in India must be aligned with the broader objectives of institutional integrity, player welfare, and democratic functioning. The National Sports Governance Bill, if enacted and implemented in spirit, has the potential to ensure that Indian cricket remains not only a global powerhouse but also a model of ethical and accountable sports administration.
*DISCLAIMER- The opinions and views expressed in this article are that of the Author(s) and not of SLRI- the expressed opinions do not, in any way whatsoever, reflect the views of any third party, including any institution/organisation that the Author(s) is/are currently associated to or was/were associated to in the past. Furthermore, the expressions are solely for informational and educational purposes, and must not be deemed to constitute any kind of advice. The hyperlinks in this blog might take you to webpages operated by third parties- SLRI does not guarantee or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information, data, opinions, advice, statements, etc. on these webpages.
Preferred Citation: Sahil Beniwal, The End of Autonomy? Examining the Impact of the National Sports Governance Bill (2025) on the BCCI’s Legal Status, Sports Law Review India, available at <https://sportslawreviewindia.blog/2025/08/01/the-end-of-autonomy-examining-the-impact-of-the-national-sports-governance-bill-2025-on-the-bccis-legal-status/> Published on 1 August 2025.
[*CLARIFICATION BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD]
Subsequent to the publication of the above blog, the National Sports Government Act, 2025 (“NSGA”) has finally been enacted, and a fundamental change is pertinent to note. The NSGA brings clarity to the BCCI’s position under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI”), which is clarified for the readers hereunder.
The version of the NSGA that received Presidential assent on 18 August 2025 departs significantly from the Bill passed by the Lok Sabha on 23 July 2025, particularly in the application of RTI . While the Bill’s Section 15(2) classified every recognised National Sports Body (“NSB”) as a public authority under the RTI, the enacted Section 14(2) limits this designation only to NSBs that receive government grants or financial assistance, and even then, restricts disclosure strictly to the use of such funds. This change materially reduces the transparency originally envisioned.
Consequently, the BCCI, India’s most affluent NSB, remains outside RTI’s ambit, as it does not receive direct state funding and is unlikely to alter this stance despite its now mandatory recognition under the NSGA. Therefore, while the NSGA’s limited RTI inclusion marks incremental progress toward greater accountability in sports governance, the carve-out for financially autonomous bodies like the BCCI represents a substantive dilution of transparency and a missed opportunity for reform.
LET'S TALK SPORTS LAW 
Leave a comment