BCCI to Come Under New Sports Bill, RTI Scope Reduced
Despite some relaxations, the bill mandates a minimum representation of athletes in the executive body of every NSF.
In a major development that could reshape sports administration in India, the central government has circulated key changes to the long-awaited National Sports Development Bill, offering a significant relief to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
The modified draft notably reduces the extent to which the Right to Information (RTI) Act applies to sports federations.
When Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya introduced the bill in the Lok Sabha on July 23, 2025, it contained a sweeping provision stating that “a recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties, and powers under this Act.”
However, in the updated version now being circulated among Members of Parliament, Clause 15(2) has been revised to state:
“A recognised sports organisation, receiving grants or any other financial support from the Central Government… or from a State Government, shall be considered a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005, with respect to utilisation of such grants or financial assistance.”
This minor yet significant change means that sports bodies, including the BCCI, which operate without any government funding, will remain outside the purview of the RTI Act, thereby retaining their operational confidentiality.
Still, the bill mandates a minimum representation of sportspersons in the executive committee of every National Sports Federation (NSF). This includes two athletes with outstanding achievements, two members from the athletes’ committee, and at least four women—an initiative aimed at increasing athlete involvement in decision-making.
Even though it escapes full RTI coverage, the BCCI will now be required to register as an NSF—a first for the powerful cricketing body. With cricket set to be part of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, this registration is now mandatory under the Olympic Charter, thereby enabling India’s national cricket team to officially compete in Olympic events.
Key Gains for BCCI
Under the new law, the BCCI will enjoy several benefits, including longer tenures and greater organisational stability, as the proposed legislation eases the Supreme Court’s existing restrictions on three terms and the maximum age limit of 70 years for sports administrators.
This is considered a strategic boost for India, especially in terms of strengthening its presence in global organisations such as the International Cricket Council (ICC), and aligns with India’s long-term Olympic aspirations, including its bid to host the 2036 Games.
The bill also simplifies dispute resolution, as matters involving the BCCI will now come under the purview of the National Sports Tribunal, providing a single-window mechanism for resolving conflicts. This will reduce litigation in multiple courts and offer a quicker route to the Supreme Court for appeals. However, issues solely under the ICC or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will remain outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Additionally, the BCCI will no longer need Supreme Court approval for any constitutional amendments—allowing more operational independence. It can also restructure its Apex Council to align with ICC regulations, without the mandatory inclusion of independent members.
Though financially independent, BCCI’s recognition as an NSF may make it eligible for certain government benefits, such as logistical assistance for Olympic preparations.
With this legislative reform, the government seems to strike a balance between autonomy for powerful federations like the BCCI and systemic reforms aimed at improving transparency, athlete welfare, and Olympic preparedness. However, exclusion from full RTI scrutiny could trigger fresh debate over public accountability in Indian sports.
Note: The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) is a law in India that gives citizens the right to obtain information held by public authorities. It was enacted to encourage transparency and accountability by empowering citizens to seek details from government departments and question their actions. The Act also obligates public institutions to proactively disclose specific types of information and respond to queries within a set time limit.
