The 90-year-old Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) should be declared a public body. The Board and all its member cricket associations should be brought under the Right to Information law regime, the Law Commission of India recommended to the government on Wednesday.
The Board's monopolistic activities, directly and indirectly, affect the fundamental rights of citizens, players, and other functionaries. A private citizen should be able to move the highest court against the BCCI for any violation of his fundamental rights, the Law Commission led by former Supreme Court judge Justice B.S. Chauhan said in its 128-page report handed over to Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.
The Commission said the Board has been “flying under the radar of public scrutiny and encouraged an environment of opacity and non-accountability”. It has created “an impression in the minds of the general public that corruption and other forms of malpractices are adversely affecting one of the most popular sports played in India”.
“The BCCI should be held accountable, under all circumstances, for any violations of basic human rights of the stakeholders,” the Commission recommended to the government.
The Commission, which is the government's highest law advisory body, concluded that the BCCI exercises 'State-like' powers in the regulation of cricket, and thus, comes under the definition of 'State'.
BCCI virtually acts as a National Sports Federation (NSF). The Commission recommended that the ministry website should explicitly mention BCCI in the list of NSFs. This would automatically bring BCCI within the purview of RTI Act, the Commission said.
Listing some of the reasons why the Commission concluded that BCCI is a “limb of the State”, the Commission pointed out how BCCI, as an entity, is permitted de facto by the State to represent the country at the international stage. BCCI selects the Indian cricket team. The selected players wear the national colours and are the recipients of Arjuna awards. The ICC recognises BCCI as the ‘official’ body representing India and neither the government nor BCCI have ever challenged, discussed or changed the status.
The Commission highlights the political significance wielded by BCCI. How, time and again, governing parties “desire” to occupy the controlling position at the helm of the Board.
“On several occasions over the years that the post of the President of BCCI was occupied by a politician owing allegiance to the then governing political party,” the Commission pointed out. It names N.P.K. Salve to Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia to Ranbir Singh Mahendra to Sharad Pawar and very recently Anurag Thakur."
The Commission underlined how BCCI has enjoyed tax exemptions of thousands of crores of Rupees. “To be precise, between 1997- 2007, the total tax exemption amounted to INR 21,683,237,489/- (INR Twenty-one billion six hundred eighty-three million two hundred thirty-seven thousand four hundred eighty-nine),” the Commission said.
It concluded that the government has provided with “indirect substantial funding” by means of tax exemptions, subsidies, concessions and providing land at “paltry” lease amounts, etc.
“If the government is foregoing a significant amount of money which otherwise would have been deposited in the National/State Exchequer, it would qualify as indirect substantial funding by the government. It would follow that the body/entity receiving such benefits would be a ‘public authority’, even though it may be a private, non-statutory or non-government body,” the Commission said.
