Implementing RTI Act in BCCI is downright self-defeating, will cause Board more harm than good

Editor’s note: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the BCCI to be put under the RTI Act and be answerable to the people of the country under its mechanism. As the debate rages on whether BCCI should be brought under RTI or not, we analyse how the Act would cause the cricket board more harm than good. To read the opposing viewpoint, click here .  The stage looked set for another round of court cases as the Central Information Commission (CIC) on Monday ruled that BCCI was covered by the Right to Information Act (RTI). The BCCI has always held the opposite view: that it did not come under the ambit of RTI. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner, justified his ruling by stating that the Supreme Court had approved BCCI holding “virtual monopoly rights to organise events in the country” and that the Board had the “power and ability to impact the human rights of athletes and potential athletes.” While Acharyulu agrees that state funding “determines whether a non-government organisation is a public authority” he interprets that “the economic and human rights impact of the body’s powers are dominant theme of the Law Commission report. [caption id=“attachment_5302231” align=“alignnone” width=“825”]  Representational photo. AFP[/caption] “This represents a broader and more contemporary view of the jurisprudence backing the application of public laws to prima facie ‘private’ bodies in sport,” he said. Therefore, would “economic and human rights impact” be just cause for RTI in other non-government organisations too? Would these two catch phrases or clauses be sufficient for RTI against Indian Premier League (IPL) franchises, for instance? After all if these can be utilised against BCCI, why not against the franchises who utilise BCCI’s infrastructure and goodwill for the conduct of the IPL? And by the same token, why not the corporates who control IPL? They too could be whipped with the same clauses. Acharyulu’s argument for rolling over BCCI’s request for more time for submission was that the cricket body neither appeared on dates of hearing nor gave any written submission. They therefore had to give answers to the appellant within 10 days. Earlier, Acharyulu had been quoted as saying: “It is the responsibility of the CIC to put an end to this prolonging uncertainty which makes the BCCI non-transparent and unaccountable without any moral backing and legal reasoning.” He had said this after the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports did not give a satisfactory response to an RTI applicant, Geeta Rani, who had sought to know the provisions and guidelines under which BCCI has been representing India and selecting players for the country. The applicant had also asked whether players selected by BCCI are playing for India or for the association; how can a private association represent the country internationally; what is the benefit of the government in giving rights and authority to BCCI to represent the country, through the 12-pointer RTI application. Acharyulu now not only holds that BCCI comes under RTI Act, but wants it to appoint the pointsman to whom all RTI queries can be directed and for the latter to come up with answers within 10 days. The impression garnered from this seemingly quick-fix solution is that Acharyulu might not have been aware that BCCI in its tussle over the Lodha Committee reforms was itself a moth-eaten body. It was barely functioning, with its acting secretary and president not empowered to even call for a meeting or sign cheques, let alone act or speak authoritatively on behalf of BCCI. Sure, the Committee of Administrators (CoA) or the CEO ought to have been more proactive and done the right thing by the Board. But then who knows; they probably believe that doing nothing was the right thing! Yet, BCCI has no option but to challenge the CIC’s order. RTI is not good for cricket or for cricketers’ relations with one another. It is a recipe for bitterness. Take cricket selections. These are by and large arbitrary affairs. Selectors go not only on the basis of records but are also driven by intuition and the perceived potential of a youngster. How somebody expects these to be answered by RTI defeats reasoning. For instance, Prithvi Shaw has been selected on the basis of his potential and the belief that he would be an asset two years down the line while Mayank Agarwal has been chosen on the basis of his performance the past two years. Different yardsticks were used. Choosing these two would have also meant downplaying or running down others who didn’t make the cut. How would it help the public to know the short-comings of the dropped player? In fact it would be counter-productive. Likewise, in the coming season how can a century against Meghalaya be compared to the one against Karnataka? Will the discussion of these two tons and disparaging remarks of the bowling of one team be public knowledge? Worse, if a junior team selector, probably a team mate of Sachin Tendulkar, had to drop his son Arjun, should the discussion and voting pattern be made known? Would it not affect Tendulkar’s working with that selector in some other committee? Similarly, why should injury details of players or their rehabilitation be a matter for RTI? This would play into the hands of the opposition. Further, would there be demand for minutes of team meetings or manager’s confidential report after a tour or series? And how would these benefit the public? It is not only selections; a whole lot of other issues, including dialogue on fixtures, scheduling, talks with other boards, commercial negotiations and agreements must remain confidential or else they would be convenient tools to beat BCCI with in future discussions. It is common knowledge that BCCI has stayed ahead of other nations’ boards because they have held their cards close to the chest. Why prise these out through RTI and weaken their hand? Sure, there would be a case for transparency in financial detailing. But that should be left to top-rated audit companies. Super audits too could be performed at regular intervals to sniff out whatever misappropriation takes place. And do punish the guilty. But implementing RTI just because it is the flavour of the season is downright self-defeating. More harm than good will happen. BCCI is not a government body nor is it funded by the government. It must value its independence and resist this latest attempt to pull the rug. To read the opposing viewpoint titled 'The decision was long time coming and would help the board improve public image', click here