New Delhi, May 19 -- The Central Information Commission (CIC) on Monday ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not fall within the ambit of a "public authority" under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, holding that the cricket board remains an autonomous private body not substantially financed or controlled by the government, and cautioning that excessive regulatory control could disrupt its "finely balanced economic structure". In a detailed order passed by Information Commissioner PR Ramesh, the Commission revisited the issue pursuant to directions issued by the Madras High Court in September 2025, which had remitted the matter back to the CIC for fresh adjudication after reviewing a 2018 CIC ruling that had earlier declared the BCCI a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that BCCI, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, was neither established by nor under the Constitution, nor created by a parliamentary or state legislation, nor constituted through any governmental notification or executive order. "Judicial precedents, statutory interpretation, and subsequent legislative developments consistently indicate that BCCI is neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government," held CIC while dismissing the plea, filed by Geeta Rani. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Zee Telefilms Ltd Vs Union of India (2005), Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs State of Kerala (2013) and Dalco Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs Satish Prabhakar Padhye (2010), CIC held that the statutory requirements under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act were mandatory and had not been satisfied in the case of the BCCI. To be sure, in the Zee Telefilms Ltd judgment, the SC had held that although BCCI discharges significant public functions in regulating cricket in India, it does not qualify as "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution because of the absence of deep and pervasive governmental control over its affairs. CIC on Monday agreed with this view, as the order underscored that there was "no deep or pervasive control" exercised by the government over BCCI's administration or affairs, that the government had no role in appointment of its office-bearers, and that the board remained financially independent through revenues generated from broadcasting rights, sponsorships, ticket sales and commercial arrangements. "The judgement will clear the confusion and bring closure to the opinions of various persons and authorities at many levels on the matter. We welcome the judgement whole heartedly. It has vindicated our stand at various forums including the Supreme Court. I can assure you that the BCCI works in a fair and transparent manner," BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia told HT....