Public Authority under RTI Act, 2005

The Central Information Commission held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India does not fall within the definition of a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act 2005.

About Public Authority under RTI Act

Legal Definition

A “Public Authority” is defined under:

• Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005

It includes:

• Any authority, body, or institution of self-government established or constituted by specified legal means.

Categories of Public Authority

1. Established by or under the Constitution

Institutions created directly by the Constitution.

Examples

• Election Commission of India

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)

2. Established by Law made by Parliament or State Legislature

Bodies created through legislation.

Examples

• Reserve Bank of India

• National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)

3. Established by Government Notification or Order

Bodies formed through executive action.

Examples

• NITI Aayog

4. Bodies Owned, Controlled or Substantially Financed by Government

Includes public sector entities where government has:

• Ownership

• Administrative control

• Significant financial support

Example

• Coal India Limited

5. NGOs Substantially Financed by Government

Non-government organizations receiving substantial government funding directly or indirectly.

Example

• DAV College Trust and similar educational societies

Key Features of Public Authorities under RTI

Public authorities are required to:

• Provide information sought by citizens

• Maintain transparency in functioning

• Appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs)

• Proactively disclose important information

Importance of RTI Act

1. Promotes Transparency

Ensures openness in governance.

2. Strengthens Accountability

Makes public institutions answerable to citizens.

3. Reduces Corruption

Public scrutiny discourages misuse of power.

4. Enhances Citizen Participation

Enables informed participation in democracy.

BCCI and RTI Debate

The status of Board of Control for Cricket in India under RTI has been debated because:

• It performs public functions related to cricket administration

• Yet it is registered as a private body

Arguments in favour of bringing BCCI under RTI include:

• Monopoly over cricket governance in India

• Public importance of its activities

Arguments against include:

• Lack of substantial government financing

• Autonomous organizational structure

Conclusion

Under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act 2005, a public authority includes bodies established by law, government order, or substantially financed by the government. The recent decision of the Central Information Commission regarding Board of Control for Cricket in India highlights continuing debates on transparency and accountability in institutions performing public functions.