What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

They may ask if BCCI is a 'public authority' under RTI. The trap is that while the Supreme Court said it performs 'public duties', the CIC recently ruled it is NOT a 'public authority' as per the strict definition in Section 2(h). They might also swap the years for the Law Commission report (2018) or the SC's public duty affirmation (2015-16).

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: ₹2,100 crore in tax exemptions (1997-2007) 2. Target this Nodal Body: Central Information Commission (CIC) 3. Target this Legal Point: Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 7 of 31

CIC Excludes BCCI from RTI Act, Despite SC's 2015-16 Public Duty Ruling & ₹2,100 Cr Tax Exemptions (1997-2007)

Q: Which statutory body is responsible for adjudicating appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005?

Central Information Commission, The Central Information Commission (CIC) is the statutory body established under the RTI Act, 2005 to adjudicate appeals and complaints regarding information requests. The Law Commission is an advisory body, the Supreme Court is the apex judicial body, and NHRC deals with human rights violations.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the BCCI and the RTI Act: 1. The Supreme Court, during the adoption of Lodha committee recommendations (2015-16), stated that the BCCI performs public duties. 2. The Law Commission of India, in its 2018 report, argued for including BCCI under the RTI Act because it is substantially financed by the Central Government. 3. The Central Information Commission (CIC) has recently ruled that the BCCI is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Only 1, Statement 1 is correct as per the article. Statement 2 is incorrect; the Law Commission's 2018 argument was based on BCCI's public functions and tax exemptions (interpreted as foregone state revenue), not direct substantial financing by the government. Statement 3 is incorrect; the CIC recently ruled that BCCI is NOT a public authority under Section 2(h).

Q: According to the article, what was the value of tax exemptions enjoyed by the BCCI between 1997 and 2007, as cited by the Law Commission?

₹2,100 crore, The article explicitly states that the Law Commission noted the BCCI received tax exemptions worth ₹2,100 crore in the period 1997-2007, interpreting this as foregone state revenue. The other figures are distractors.

Q: What is the primary legal argument used by the CIC to exclude BCCI from the purview of the RTI Act, as per the news article?

BCCI is not a constitutional or statutory body and was not created by government notification under Section 2(h)., The article states the CIC's decision is based strictly on Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines 'public authority'. Since BCCI is not constitutionally/statutorily created nor notified by the government, it does not fit the definition. While other options are mentioned as concerns in the debate, they are not the CIC's primary legal basis for exclusion.

Polity MiscellaneousHIGH

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

21 May 2026

~2 min

Source: The Hindu

Key Data:₹2,100 croreSection 2(h) RTI Act1997-20072015-162018

Bodies:BCCICentral Information Commission (CIC)Supreme Court of India (SC)Law Commission of IndiaMadras High Court

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.The Central Information Commission (CIC) reversed an earlier order and ruled that the BCCI is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

2.The decision is contested due to BCCI's monopoly over cricket, use of public infrastructure, police deployment, and tax exemptions worth ₹2,100 crore (1997-2007) interpreted as foregone state revenue.

3.Examiners can test the legal tussle over RTI applicability, the specific section (2(h)), and the conflicting judicial views (Supreme Court's 2015-16 public duty affirmation vs. CIC's recent ruling).

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has excluded BCCI from the Right to Information (RTI) Act, reversing a previous ruling. This decision is contentious as the Supreme Court and Law Commission have previously recognized BCCI's public duties and its receipt of substantial indirect state benefits, including tax exemptions worth ₹2,100 crore. This highlights the ongoing legal debate about transparency for private bodies with monopoly power over a national sport.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Tax Exemptions (1997-2007)₹2,100 crore

Key RTI Act SectionSection 2(h)

Year of Law Commission Report2018

SC's Public Duty Ruling Period2015-16

1-Minute Revision

›Tax Exemptions (1997-2007): ₹2,100 crore
›Key RTI Act Section: Section 2(h)
›Target this Data: ₹2,100 crore in tax exemptions (1997-2007)
›Target this Nodal Body: Central Information Commission (CIC)
›Target this Legal Point: Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

CIC's Legal Reversal

The CIC ruled BCCI is not a public authority under RTI Act Section 2(h), reversing former Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu's order.

🏏

Public Duty vs. Private Body

While the Supreme Court (2015-16) and Law Commission (2018) affirmed BCCI performs public duties, its private commercial nature complicates RTI applicability.

💰

State Benefits Argument

BCCI enjoys indirect state support like tax exemptions (₹2,100 Cr), concessional land, police deployment, and public stadiums, fueling calls for transparency.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The Right to Information Act, 2005, primarily applies to public authorities. The legal debate on BCCI's inclusion stems from its unique position as a private, self-funded body that monopolizes cricket, a national sport, and receives significant indirect state support. Past disputes in 2005 and 2013 set the stage for the Supreme Court's intervention during the Lodha committee reforms.

Core Analysis & Implications

The CIC's decision hinges on a strict interpretation of Section 2(h), which defines 'public authority'. BCCI lacks direct government financing or creation. However, the Supreme Court (2015-16) and Law Commission (2018) emphasized its public functions, monopoly status, and the substantial indirect state aid (tax exemptions of ₹2,100 crore seen as foregone revenue). This creates a legal contradiction: writ jurisdiction applies to BCCI (per SC), yet its internal records remain private. The ruling impacts transparency in sports governance and sets a precedent for other private bodies performing public functions.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The CIC's decision is likely to be challenged. The article suggests amending Section 2(h) of the RTI Act to explicitly include bodies discharging public duties, especially monopolies, perhaps with safeguards for commercial interests. Courts may also need to consistently treat tax exemptions as a form of state grant, strengthening the case for transparency. This issue will remain central to debates on good governance and accountability in sports administration.

Key Facts at a Glance

Tax Exemptions (1997-2007)₹2,100 crore

Key RTI Act SectionSection 2(h)

Year of Law Commission Report2018

SC's Public Duty Ruling Period2015-16

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Which statutory body is responsible for adjudicating appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, MPSC

Consider the following statements regarding the BCCI and the RTI Act:

1. The Supreme Court, during the adoption of Lodha committee recommendations (2015-16), stated that the BCCI performs public duties.

2. The Law Commission of India, in its 2018 report, argued for including BCCI under the RTI Act because it is substantially financed by the Central Government.

3. The Central Information Commission (CIC) has recently ruled that the BCCI is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, Banking

According to the article, what was the value of tax exemptions enjoyed by the BCCI between 1997 and 2007, as cited by the Law Commission?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, MPSC, State PSC

What is the primary legal argument used by the CIC to exclude BCCI from the purview of the RTI Act, as per the news article?

All 15 MCQs ▸

Read original article from The Hindu

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →MiscellaneousView Topic MCQs →

PreviousKarnataka HC Quashes Detention Order Under 1985 Goonda Act, Cites Article 22(5) Violation for Non-Furnishing of Kannada Documents Next Allahabad HC Quashes Rape Case Under IPC Section 376, Flags Trend of Criminalising Sour Consensual Relationships

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

Madras HC: No Sanction Needed Under BNSS Section 218 for Disproportionate Assets Cases

The Madras High Court has ruled that no prior sanction is required under Section 197 CrPC or Section 218 BNSS to prosecute public servants for disproportionate assets, because such an offence has no nexus with official duty. The ruling, which refused to discharge former DMK Minister M.R.K. Panneerselvam and his family, clarifies a key examiner-relevant dimension of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Strength Increased to 38 Judges: Will It Reduce Pendency and Free Up Constitution Benches?

Parliament has passed a bill increasing Supreme Court judge strength from 34 to 38, aimed at enabling regular Constitution Benches and reducing case backlog (92,101 cases pending as of Jan 1, 2026). However, past Law Commission reports question if more judges alone can solve pendency, and the real impact depends on filling vacancies and judicial management.

Polity Current Affairs

Advocates Act 1961 and Bar Council of India: Statutory Powers, Enrolment Process and Legal Education Standards

The BCI came under scrutiny after it briefly directed state bar councils to stop enrolling NALSAR University's 2026 batch, then withdrew the order. Since UPSC has asked about BCI before, aspirants must know its statutory origin under the Advocates Act 1961, its functions, and why enrolment is actually done by State Bar Councils.

Polity Current Affairs

Madras HC Directs TN Chief Secretary to Form Panel on POCSO, Juvenile Justice Gaps

The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to form a committee of Home, Health, and Law Secretaries to address systemic gaps in implementing the POCSO and Juvenile Justice Acts. The court made key suggestions including gender-neutral application of POCSO, avoiding criminalizing consensual adolescent relationships, and establishing protocols for medical termination of pregnancy and child witness deposition rooms. This is crucial for UPSC aspirants as it touches upon child rights, judicial activism, and state governance.

Polity Current Affairs

Madras HC Upholds Speaker's Decision to Drop Disqualification of 21 AIADMK MLAs Under Tenth Schedule

Madras High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker's decision to drop disqualification proceedings against 21 AIADMK MLAs who had defied the party whip and voted for the TVK government. The Court ruled that a political party can condone its members' voting against the whip within 15 days, even if the initial complaint sought disqualification under both paragraphs of the Tenth Schedule.

Polity Current Affairs

Madras High Court: Physical Features Cannot Determine Scheduled Caste Status

The Madras High Court has ruled that physical appearance, skin colour, height, and language cannot be used to determine Scheduled Caste status, setting aside a denial based on such 'look tests'. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that caste status is determined by birth, conversion, and community acceptance, not by subjective physical characteristics. It is a significant affirmation of constitutional safeguards against discrimination.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Issues Notice to Centre on Plea to Ban Polygamy Under Section 82 BNS Uniformly

The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of polygamy among Muslims, arguing it violates gender equality and is a primary driver of female destitution. The plea seeks uniform application of Section 82 BNS (bigamy law) and compulsory registration of Muslim marriages. This case could reignite the Uniform Civil Code debate and has implications for personal law reforms.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Upholds Death by Hanging: Cites Stare Decisis, No Scientific Evidence for Lethal Injection

The Supreme Court has upheld hanging as the sole method of execution in India, dismissing a PIL that challenged its constitutional validity. The Court relied on the principle of stare decisis, citing a 1983 precedent and a lack of conclusive scientific evidence favoring lethal injection. This judgment reinforces the legal status quo on capital punishment but leaves the door open for future challenges.

Start Today's Quiz(15 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

15 Qs • 5-7 Mins

CIC Excludes BCCI from RTI Act, Despite SC's 2015-16 Public Duty Ruling & ₹2,100 Cr Tax Exemptions (1997-2007)

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

CIC's Legal Reversal

Public Duty vs. Private Body

State Benefits Argument

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance