What constitutes public authority under the RTI Act

The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act, and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the Act.

In its May 2026 ruling, the CIC underlined that the BCCI is a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. As “a private association of individuals which has obtained legal recognition through registration”, the BCCI is not subject to control of the government in any meaningful way, it added.

The ruling revives broader questions about public authority, particularly in the context of the right to know as an essential part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. How did the right to know evolve in India into the Right to Information Act, 2005 , and what constitutes a public authority under the Act?

CIC Rules: BCCI Is Not a "Public Authority" Under RTI Act

The Ruling What's a Public Authority? BCCI vs RTI Function ≠ Authority

THE VERDICT

CIC: BCCI cannot be forced to disclose information

In its May 2026 ruling, the CIC held that the BCCI is a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 — and as "a private association of individuals which has obtained legal recognition through registration," it is not subject to meaningful government control.

May 2026

When the CIC issued its ruling

1975

Act under which BCCI is registered (Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act)

SECTION 2(H), RTI ACT

Four ways a body can qualify

The Act defines "public authority" as any body established or constituted in one of these ways — plus a separate financing/control test.

⚖

By or under the Constitution

Bodies directly created through constitutional provisions.

★

By law made by Parliament or State Legislature

Bodies set up through central or state legislation.

◆

By government notification or order

Bodies constituted by an order of the appropriate government.

✓

Owned, controlled, or substantially financed

Extends even to NGOs substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by government funds.

2005

Supreme Court, in Zee Telefilms v Union of India, holds BCCI is not "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

2013

In Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank v State of Kerala, SC rules "control" must be substantial — mere regulation isn't enough; "substantial financing" means funds essential for the body to function.

2018

Then-CIC M Sridhar Acharyulu rules BCCI IS a public authority, directing it to set up RTI disclosure mechanisms. BCCI challenges this in the Madras High Court.

SEPTEMBER 2025

Madras High Court sends the matter back to the CIC for a fresh look.

MAY 2026

CIC reverses the 2018 ruling, relying on Thalappalam, Zee Telefilms, and Dalco Engineering v Satish Prabhakar Padhye to hold BCCI does not meet Section 2(h)'s requirements.

THE CORE ARGUMENT

Performing public functions ≠ being a public authority

The CIC held that the term "public function" appears nowhere in the Act's definition of "public authority." The law tests governmental control and financing — not the nature of the functions performed.

CRITICS POINT TO

Use of "India" nomenclature, tax exemptions, regulatory control over cricket, and picking the national team — with tacit State consent

CIC HELD

Tax exemptions ≠ substantial government financing; performing significant public functions alone doesn't satisfy Section 2(h)

Sources: Central Information Commission ruling, May 2026 · Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005) · Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank v State of Kerala (2013)

The constitutional foundation of the right to know

Democracies across the world recognise access to information as the lifeblood of a vibrant civil society. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) affirm the right to seek, receive, and impart information as an integral component of freedom of expression.

In India, the judiciary played a vital role in facilitating the right to know as an essential part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. For instance, the Supreme Court made a landmark pronouncement in the State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Narain (1975) case by noting, “…people of this country have a right to know about every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries…”

In L K Koolwal vs State of Rajasthan (1986), the court reiterated, “Under Article 19(a) of the Constitution there exists the right of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is based on the foundation of the freedom of right to know.”

Story continues below this ad

The evolution of the RTI Act

Later on, the campaign for the right to information gained momentum with the historic struggle of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan during the 1990s.

Villagers in Devdungri who publicly scrutinised the fake muster rolls and other bills during public hearings emerged as the architects of the demand for transparency and accountability in governance. The grassroots movement eventually paved the way for the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Act came into force in October 2005 with the objectives of promoting transparency and accountability in public administration, containing corruption, and strengthening participatory democracy through informed citizenry. But the most pertinent question is: what constitutes public authority under the RTI Act.

Public authority under the RTI Act

Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines public authority as any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted –

(a) by or under the Constitution;

(b) by any other law made by Parliament;

(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;

Story continues below this ad

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government.

The definition further extends to any authority, body, or institution owned, controlled or substantially financed by appropriate governments. Even non-Government organisations substantially financed, either directly or indirectly, by the funds of the appropriate government come under the ambit of the Act.

In sum, the Act provides a broader definition of public authority to bring within its ambit not only governmental authorities but also institutions and bodies that function with substantial government funding and control.

Major obligations of public authorities

Section 4 of the RTI Act lays down the major obligations of public authorities. Public authorities are mandated to maintain all their records systematically, duly catalogued and indexed to facilitate easy access to information. The Act also mandates every public authority to publish and annually update the particulars of their organisations, functions, duties, decisionmaking process and other relevant information.

Story continues below this ad

Thus, the Act encourages public authorities to disseminate as much information as possible to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication, including the internet and in local language as far as practicable, to minimise the need for formal requests.

Furthermore, it is mandatory for public authorities to designate Public Information Officers (PIO) in all their administrative units and offices to receive RTI applications and provide requested information to applicants in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

However, a crucial question is whether or not the performance of public functions or “public actions” by an institution brings it within the ambit of the RTI Act.

Can “public actions” determine a public authority?

In its May 2026 ruling about the BCCI, the CIC relied on the three judgements of the Supreme Court – Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank v State of Kerala, Zee Telefilms v Union of India, and Dalco Engineering v Satish Prabhakar Padhye – holding that the BCCI did not satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Story continues below this ad

In Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court held that BCCI is not qualified as “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Nonetheless, several judicial observations and expert committee reports have acknowledged that the body performs significant public functions.

In 2018, then-Central Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu also held that the BCCI is a public authority and directed the body to set up mechanisms to disseminate information under the RTI Act.

But the BCCI challenged that order in the Madras High Court, which sent the matter back to the CIC for a fresh look in September 2025. And by holding that the BCCI is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act, the Commission reversed the 2018 ruling.

Why public functions alone are not enough

But critics of the CIC ruling argue that the BCCI enjoys privileges like a public authority, such as the use of the nomenclature ‘India’ in international sports, tax exemptions, regulatory control over cricket, and the selection of the national team for the country, with the tacit consent of the State.

Story continues below this ad

Nonetheless, the CIC said that certain tax exemptions enjoyed by the BCCI do not amount to the government substantially financing it. It further maintained that merely performing significant public functions does not automatically make the BCCI fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Moreover, the term “public function” does not appear anywhere in the Act for the purpose of defining “public authority”. Instead, the Act focuses on the nature of governmental control and the extent of public financing. It is these statutory tests that have become the focal point of judicial interpretation.

Governmental control and substantial financing

Although the RTI Act does not clearly define terms such as “substantial financing” and “controlled by appropriate government”, CIC decisions and judicial interventions from time to time seek to clarify the use of these expressions.

In the Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd & others v State of Kerala & others (2013) case, the Supreme Court held that cooperative societies are not public authorities under the RTI Act. The court observed that “control” by the appropriate government must be substantial in nature and that mere supervision and regulation by the government is insufficient to bring any institution within the ambit of the Act.

Story continues below this ad

The court also narrowly defined the term “substantial financing” as “essential”, without which a body cannot practically run. These interpretations keep non-governmental bodies, including those performing significant public functions and extensively regulated by the governments, outside the purview of the RTI Act.

Beyond legal formalism

Beyond the legal and statutory debates, it may be suggested that institutions performing public functions, regardless of their form and nature of organisation, could strive to uphold and maximise accountability and transparency in their administration. Greater transparency and accountability strengthen public trust and contribute to the creation of social capital.

Moreover, market considerations and claims for competitive advantages need not override the broader democratic value of transparency in administration. Lastly, efforts to clarify the statutory meaning and scope of contested expressions could help broaden the ambit of transparency laws.

Post read questions

1. The right to information is an essential facet of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Discuss with reference to judicial pronouncements.

Story continues below this ad

2. Discuss the significance of proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. What are the key obligations of public authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005?

3. Transparency and accountability are indispensable to democratic governance. Discuss the role of the Right to Information Act in strengthening these values.

4. Should institutions performing public functions be treated as public authorities under the Right to Information Act? Why or why not?

(Dileep P Chandran is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science in P M Government College, Chalakudy, Kerala.)

Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with [email protected].

Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for June 2026. Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.

Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.