BCCI Kept Out Of RTI Ambit In Amended Sports Governance Bill

In what can be construed as a relief to the BCCI, the Sports Ministry has amended the RTI-related provision of the National Sports Governance Bill, placing only those bodies under its ambit which rely on government grants and assistance.

The bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha by Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya on July 23 and its clause 15 (2) stated that "a recognised sports organisation shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers under this Act."

The RTI has been a thorny issue for the BCCI, which has steadfastly opposed coming under it as the Board is not dependent on government funds unlike a majority of other National Sports Federations (NSFs).

The amendment proposed in the bill effectively puts an end to that apprehension.

"The amended clause defines public authority as an entity that is relying on government funds or assistance. With this amendment, there is a clear definition of what is a public authority," a well-placed source told PTI.

"If this had not been done, it would have been a grey area that could have led to the bill getting held up or being challenged in court. So anything that involves public money will come under RTI. It defines the specifics," the source added.

"And even if a national sports body is not taking government funds, it can still be questioned if government assistance of any kind is involved in the conduct or operation of its events. Because government assistance is not merely funds, it is also about infrastructure," he explained.

The BCCI had earlier stated that it would study the bill before commenting on its provisions.

The RTI Act defines a "public authority" as any institution or body created by any law made by Parliament or a State Legislature, including bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government.

The amended sports bill will be "in alignment with this definition." Once the bill becomes an act, the BCCI will have to register itself as an NSF given that cricket has become an Olympic sport, which is set for a debut in the 2028 Games in the T20 format.

The bill has the provision for a National Sports Board (NSB) to create a stringent system of accountability and all NSFs will have to attain NSB's recognition for access to central government funding.

Another striking aspect of it is the National Sports Tribunal, which will have the powers of a civil court and decide disputes ranging from selection to election involving federations and athletes. Once instituted, the Tribunal's decisions can only be challenged in the Supreme Court.

The bill makes some concessions on the issue of age cap for administrators by allowing those in the bracket of 70 to 75 to contest elections if the concerned international bodies' statutes and byelaws allow for it. It is a departure from the national sports code that capped the age limit at 70.

"...as a part of the preparatory activities for the bidding of Summer Olympic Games 2036, it is imperative that the sports governance landscape undergoes a positive transformation to bring better outcomes, sporting excellence and aids in improved performance in major international competitions," reads the bill's statement of objectives.

The NSB will comprise a chairperson and its members will be appointed by the central government from "amongst persons of ability, integrity and standing."

The appointments would be done based on the recommendations of a search-cum-selection committee, which would be made up of the Cabinet Secretary or Secretary Sports as chairperson, the Director General of the Sports Authority of India, two sports administrators who have each served as the President or Secretary General or Treasurer of a National Sports Body and one eminent sportsperson who is a Dronacharya, or Khel Ratna or Arjuna awardee.

The NSB will have the mandate to de-recognise a national body that fails to hold elections for its Executive Committee or has committed "gross irregularities in the election procedures."

Failure to publish annual audited accounts or "misused, misapplied or misappropriated public funds" would also be liable for action by the NSB but it would be required to consult the concerned global body before making its move.