The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is in the present position to face renewed questions about its role in India’s new sports governance system after the Supreme Court ordered it to be included in the National Sports Governance Act. The matter has significant implications for the way cricket is run in India, especially on this side of the game (regulatory oversight, transparency, accountability, RTI and office-holders).
The Supreme Court took up the matter in hearing applications filed by various cricket bodies in the long-running case concerning the BCCI. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana questioned why the BCCI and state cricket associations should remain outside the scope of the legislation.
The question is important because the BCCI is not, after all, just a sports organisation. It runs Indian cricket, domestic competitions and national teams. Any change in its legal and administration system would have consequences if it had to do with the cricket in the country.
What exactly is the National Sports Governance Act?
The National Sports Governance Act is intended to establish a legal framework for the management of sports organisations in India. Its other purpose is to establish uniformity, accountability and transparency of national bodies.
The legislation is largely constructed of two key mechanisms. The first is a central framework that will establish rules for the functioning and management of sports bodies. Such oversight will take into account governance procedures, compliance, transparency and organisational accountability.
The second is a dedicated sports tribunal to deal with sports administration disputes. The tribunal would be a specific forum for governance-related cases and sports organisations to follow the law.
For the BCCI, the fundamental question is whether these provisions should apply to cricket administration in the same way they apply to other national sports bodies.
Why is BCCI against greater oversight?
The BCCI has traditionally argued it should not be subject to direct statutory government regulation. One of its arguments has been that it does not depend on government grants or public funding to operate.
From the perspective of the board, that distinction is important because it has said that an organisation operating without government financial support should not be treated as a sports club that is funded by the state.
However, the implementation of the sports law would add a new level of legal oversight. It could bring into question the financial and administrative aspects of the BCCI and what sort of transparency requirements, including access to information under the RTI framework.
The prospect of statutory regulation is thus one of the reasons the legislation has become a major issue for cricket administration.
RTI And Transparency Questions
The Right to Information Act could be one of the most closely watched aspects of the dispute. The BCCI has typically been autonomous of the state and courts have investigated its public image and relationship with the state.
If the new framework results in the BCCI coming within the relevant statutory oversight structure, questions could arise whether more information related to its financial and administrative decisions would be accessible through RTI mechanisms.
Such a change would have a big impact on how the board operates. Contracts, administration, decisions and financial management could be subject to greater transparency that could be required.
BCCI's Earlier Legal Argument
BCCI has also raised questions about whether cricket has been formally notified as a designated sport under the legislation. In its case before the Odisha High Court, the board had argued that in such a case the Act could not automatically be applied to its operations.
That argument underlines the legal uncertainty about the scope of the legislation and its application to cricket. This question might be very important to the BCCI and state associations in future if they are not able to navigate in the new regulatory system as it is.
The issue is particularly relevant because state cricket associations are an important component of the BCCI’s administrative structure. Bringing them under the same legal framework could bring about more uniform governance standards across Indian cricket.
What is the present BCCI governance system?
At present, BCCI governance is based on the Lodha Committee recommendations that have been accepted and backed by the Supreme Court.
Under the present system office-bearers have set limits on consecutive terms at the state association and BCCI level. In both of these levels only two consecutive terms are allowed. This means up to six years at the state level and six years at the BCCI level, so that a continuous tenure can last for 12 years after which it must be completed with a cooling-off period of 3 years.
The tenure restrictions were introduced in the context of wider reforms to avoid power sharing and to make cricket administration more accountable.
What could change for Indian Cricket?
If the National Sports Governance Act is finally applied to the BCCI and state associations, cricket administration could undergo another major structural change.
The most immediate effect could be greater regulatory oversight of how cricket bodies function. Governance standards could be more formally regulated, and disputes could be directed to the specialised tribunal established under the framework.
And office-bearer tenure could also be a topic for discussion if the statutory framework introduces requirements that differ from the Lodha Committee-based system. The interplay between the new legislation and the existing Supreme Court-approved governance structure could therefore become a major legal question.
For the BCCI, the challenge is to maintain the autonomy it has historically defended while responding to demands for greater transparency and accountability. For the government and courts, the issue is how to create a governance framework that applies consistently without unnecessarily interfering with the operational independence of sports bodies.
The Supreme Court intervened again to take up the issue. While no final change has been made to the BCCI’s structure based on the questions raised in court, the court’s decisions may determine the legal status of the Indian cricket administration in the future. The decision might be as much of an indication of how much control the BCCI must have and how much statutory oversight it will have to comply with under India's evolving sports governance framework.
