[Authors: Sreaans Shukla and Kartik Aggarwal]
Introduction
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), initially registered under Act XXI of 1860 at Chennai (Madras) and subsequently registered under the Tamil Nadu Society Registration Act, 1975 is the body which has the responsibility of governing the sport of cricket in India. It selects the team representing India, and is a non-governmental not-for-profit entity with a financial turnover that dwarfs that of many state corporations. BCCI enjoys a de facto monopoly over Indian Cricket. It has been confirmed by the Supreme Court several times that BCCI holds a dominant position in the Indian Cricketing Domain. Despite it being a humongous organisation of such a nature and performing the public function of selecting a national sports team for the country, it remains unaccountable, unanswerable and exempted from many provisions which otherwise its counter parts in terms of other national sporting bodies are subject to, making the distinction categorically skewed. This article aims to explore the wide discrepancies and ambiguity in the regulation and accountability of the richest sporting body of the country and richest cricketing body in the world. Along with highlighting the gaps in regulation and accountability it also proposes the potential solutions to ensure a robust regulatory mechanism and greater transparency going forward.
An Unaccountable Empire
BCCI demonstrated INR 39,014.14 crore as its funds in its balance sheet as on 31st March 2024, in the Annual Audited Report. This total available fund is almost thirteen times more than the entire fund allocation of 3,794 crore to the Ministry of Youth and Sports Affairs for the Financial Year 2025-26. Despite the BCCI handling such a large volume of funds and performing a public function, it has been termed to be a non-state actor outside the purview of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, failing the test of instrumentality. The case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, the locus classicus for instrumentality test established six key factors to identify “instrumentality” of State: (1) dominant State funding (2) State meeting almost entire expenditure; (3) State-conferred/State-protected monopoly; (4) deep and pervasive State control; (5) functions of public importance closely related to governmental functions; (6) transfer of a government department to the body. While it was further clarified in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. IICB/CSIR that these factors are merely indicia, not a checklist and can be flexibly applied from case to case basis, yet a few years later in the landmark case of Zee Telefilms v. Union of India, BCCI was still held to not qualify as “State” under Article 12 due to its non-statutory origin, only regulatory governmental oversight and “practically no financial assistance” by the government to Board’s entire expenditure. Though Justice S.B. Sinha in his dissenting view stated that government aid cannot be confined only to monetary grants and can also take the forms of tax exemptions and minimal rent for a stadium, and there has been an overemphasis on direct funding by the State in the Zee Telefilms case. As later demonstrated in this blog, it is not a secret that BCCI receives massive indirect funding from the government. While the instrumentality test has improved over time from the Ajay Hasia case to the Pradeep Kumar case, it should be further interpreted and applied flexibly to include indirect fundings, as interpreting the state funding in a restrictive manner defeats the essence of the test.
Exclusion from Article 12 means BCCI also ends up escaping the scrutiny of Article 32. But at the same time, it is subject to Article 226, i.e., writ jurisdiction. as held in the case of Ajay Jadeja vs. Union of India that recognises its public function like selecting the national team and regulating a sport of vast public interest. It was further reiterated in the case of BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar that BCCI enjoys monopoly over cricket in India and performs significant functions that are akin to State functions. It creates a fallacy, despite recognising the significant control of BCCI and its public functions which are akin to State, it has been kept outside the ambit of Article 32. One of the justifications given to exclude it from ambit of Article 32 is that it would open a floodgate of litigation. In doing so the volume of cases are being prioritised over fundamental rights of the citizens.
Apart from being a non-state entity, it also enjoys exemption from income tax by virtue of it claiming to be a charitable organisation under Section 12 of the Income Tax Act, which was subsequently reaffirmed by order of the Income Tax Tribunal. Additionally, attempts to bring it under RTI have also been resisted and failed by virtue of it being construed outside the purview of public authority under 2(h) of RTI Act.
One of its Own Kind
While many other National Sports Federations enjoy tax exemptions, the exemptions and unaccountability under RTI Act and other administrative provisions is not at all common. Let’s take the example of Football – unlike the BCCI, All India Football Federation (AIFF) unambiguously comes under the provisions of RTI Act. Along with AIFF, the Ministry of Youth and Sports Affairs recognize 45 sports bodies as National Sports Federations (NSF) but again BCCI is not one of them, having never sought such recognition, for the simple reason that it doesn’t require state funding and is financially independent to run its affairs.
The recently enacted National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (NSGA) would also exclude BCCI from the applicability of RTI provisions, as the same only apply to those sports organizations which receive grants and aids from the government under Section 14(2) of the NSGA. The consequences of no regulations, no oversight by the government on a body like BCCI with such a huge corpus of funds, leaving it autonomous to a great extent, have already been highlighted by the Justice Lodha Committee in its report citing, inter alia, inappropriate composition of office bearers, lack of democratic election process, and dominance by non-cricket interests. Although attempts have been made to rectify the same, such efforts have practically remained largely ineffective due to the absence of proper regulatory compliance and an effective enforcement mechanism, something which may change going forward with the enactment and coming into force of the NSGA.
The Myth of no Funding and Grants from the Government
One of the common and most prevalent arguments to keep BCCI outside the regulation and direct control of the government is that it does not receive any direct fund and financial aid from the government – and relying on the same argument, BCCI would be kept outside the purview of RTI provisions under Section 14(2) of the NSGA. Strangely, the draft of the bill was amended to exclude BCCI from RTI accountability. But this argument of receiving no funding or grants from the government does not hold true. Time and again BCCI and its affiliated bodies have received substantial funds and financial aid from the government. Overall, BCCI has enjoyed tax reliefs and exemptions worth thousands of crores – between 1997 and 2007, the total tax exemption amounted to INR 21,68,32,37,489. During the 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup, the government granted exemption from all duties of customs to specified goods imported by BCCI for organising the ICC World Cup. Further, many State-level cricket associations affiliated with BCCI have received substantial land parcels from the government at heavily subsidised rates. Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) alone received about fifty-thousand square metres land on 99 years lease only amounting to Rs.1 a month. 59 bigha land was allocated to the Assam Cricket Association by the state government in 2006 for a stadium construction. The financial aid need not necessarily have to be direct grants, and tax exemptions or for that matter subsidies or concessions; providing land at such low-cost leases also constitute indirect financial aid and help by the central or state Government, rendering such benefitting bodies and federations as public authorities. If the Government is giving a substantial amount of money either directly or in the form of relief in taxes or other levy, which if but not for this would have been utilised and submitted in the national/state exchequer and would have been categorised and used as ‘public money’, the same should qualify as indirect ‘substantial funding’ from the Government. It is also worth noting that the use of infrastructure and other facilities of the central as well as the state government by BCCI and its affiliated state cricket associations frequently at the time of events or even otherwise at great subsidies also amounts to ‘substantial financing’.
Way Forward
To bring the BCCI in tune with the constitutional principles of transparency and accountability incorporated in the Constitution and the RTI Act, a multi-faceted approach that starts from defining its status as “State” under Article 12 to effective disclosure mechanisms and effective enforcement mechanisms is an imperative. At the constitutional level, an amendment adding an explanation to Article 12 was proposed by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution report to clarify that entities performing public functions could fall within the meaning of “State.” While a constitutional amendment to Article 12 is a long process, as an instant action Section 14(2) of the newly enacted NSGA should be amended to bring BCCI within the purview of RTI provisions, just like other provisions of the act.
Further, the RTI Act itself should be amended specifically to include National Sports Federations and their constituent State Sports Associations within Section 2(h), ending any ambiguity over BCCI’s status as a public authority. BCCI, despite its registration as a private society, must be deemed a public authority under the RTI Act given its monopoly over cricket governance in India. BCCI has not been formally designated as a NSF, but has been treated as one. This is because its stated objects include: (i) controlling and improving the quality of cricket in India, (ii) laying down policies relating to cricket in India, and (iii) selecting teams to represent India internationally. The time has come for the ambiguity regarding this to be removed. Now, after the enactment of NSGA every Sports Federation must receive registration under Section 6(a) of the NSGA. Therefore, BCCI mandatorily needs to be registered as the National Sports Federation just like other sporting bodies, in the absence of which BCCI cannot use national name and insignia, as stated under Section 27 of the NSGA. Similarly, compliance with RTI related provisions should be mandated for all sports federations.
Conclusion
A sporting body which administrates a popular game in a country of 1.5 billion cannot be left unregulated, unaccountable and unanswerable. It must be included within the meaning of “State”, should be made accountable under RTI and must be treated at par with other sporting bodies and federations of the country. While some of the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee, like age cap of 70 years for office bearers and cooling off period, were implemented, it’s important to consider other recommendations regarding the status of BCCI as “State”. Additionally, the very fact that the original draft of NSGA contained provisions to include all sports federations under its RTI provision but later it was amended to include only organisations with direct financial assistance from the government demonstrates an open secret of mutual understanding across political spectrum to keep BCCI out of scrutiny. Fixing the ambiguities and taking appropriate actions to develop a robust mechanism of administration would increase the trust of people in the administration of the richest sporting body of the country.
[For queries or feedback, the Author can be reached out at ball225051@gmail.com and ballb134251@gmail.com]
*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: Sreeans Shukla and Kartik Aggarwal, BCCI Constitutional Paradox: State-like Privileges with Non-State Accountability, Sports Law Review India, published on 15 March 2026.
LET'S TALK SPORTS LAW 
Leave a comment