BCCI to contest the decision to bring it under RTI

The BCCI will legally challenge the decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC), an appellate regulatory body of the Government of India, to submit it to the Right to Information Act (RTI). The BCCI, which had already filed a lawsuit in the High Court of Madras in 2013 to challenge the possibility of being submitted to the RTI, will now seek a suspension of the CIC order announced earlier this week.

The RTI is a pioneer federal law. Law established in 2005, which makes the work of high profile organizations open to public scrutiny. The BCCI has strongly resisted the demands that must be presented in the field of the ITR for two reasons. First, he stressed that it is a company registered in Tamil Nadu and that it does not receive funds from the government. And that leads to its second point, which is that the BCCI should be treated as a private entity and not as a public authority.

Vinod Rai, the chairman of the Committee of Administrators (CoA) who has been asked to supervise the BCCI until further elections are held, said the board had informed the CIC that the matter was sub judiciary. The junta had sought some time before the decision was executed, but M Sridhar Acharyulu, the CIC commissioner, rejected that request and imposed the order. He asked the BCCI to install the infrastructure and begin receiving RTI orders from the public within 15 days of his order.

But the BCCI has indicated that it will contest the request. "The BCCI will seek a stay by order of the CIC," Rai told ESPNcricinfo.

According to Rai, everything will be posted on the BCCI website, except for details related to some key issues. "We have been practicing transparency and we have been totally transparent in absolutely everything we are doing," Rai said. "Except the details of the team meetings, the minutes of the team selections, the information about the injuries to the players, the anti-doping process and the details about the anti-corruption investigations, we are trying to include all the other details in the BCCI website ".

the BCCI must be "included in the list" as the National Sports Federation (NSF) despite being a non-governmental organization. To support his case, the CIC explained in detail sections of the Indian Law Commission, which had recently concluded that the BCCI was "virtually" an NSF and that the Indian government should recognize the same. The Legal Commission had pointed out that despite playing a "monopolist" in the regulation of cricket, the BCCI had been "flying under the radar" of public scrutiny.

The CIC echoed the same sentiment. "In the absence of effective self-regulation and the non-application of public law to examine and review the operation of the sports body, the need for public scrutiny arose and the only way to do so is through the RTI Act."

CIC met the BCCI for the first time in 2013 when Madhu Agarwal, an RTI activist, asked the Indian board for information on some of its policies. The BCCI refused to comply with Agarwal's request, so it approached the CIC. The BCCI then approached the High Court of Madras, after the CIC asked him to attend a hearing. On July 24, 2013, the court issued a suspension order and since then the case has not been heard.

However, last December, another RTI activist, Geeta Rani, wanted the BCCI to answer specific questions related to the way in which it was given the powers of a public body. Rani approached the CIC this April and the July 10, the appellate body ruled: "The commission thinks in the public interest, in the interest of fair cricket and in the fair process of selection of the members of the Indian cricket team, the BCCI must become transparent, responsible and responds under the Right to Information Act, 2005. "

The CIC requested an explanation from the BCCI as to why it should not be called a public authority despite the recommendation of the Law Commission and several pronouncements of the Supreme Court and several Superior Courts, as well as the Lodha Committee.

Acharyulu states that the BCCI did not respond to the CIC until October 1, the day the commission issued its last request. In its defense, the BCCI submitted a copy of the suspension order issued by the High Court of Madras in 2013.

However, last March, concerned about pending cases of "unduly" period, the Supreme Court issued a sentence indicating that the stay would occur after a period of six months from that day, March 28, 2018, unless an "intervention order" was granted to extend the stay in the interim period. In addition, the extension should only be granted in "exceptional circumstances in which the continuation of the suspension order is justified more than the expeditious final disposition of the trial".

Rai said that his role is for a limited period, but he does not want to "saddle" the BCCI with a decision he did not contest. He himself believed that the BCCI could not be under the scope of RTI. "In principle, I want the BCCI to be a totally transparent body, but I do not want to be under the guillotine of having to answer [to RTI requests] at a certain time, because then all kinds of requests will start coming in. I'm sure there's nothing you want to know [that is] that is not on the BCCI website, and we are committed to making it more vibrant. "

source:- espncricinfo.com

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.