Law panel chief
“Owing to its monopolistic character, coupled with the public nature of the functions that it (BCCI) performs, and the substantial financing that it has received over the years from appropriate governments, in the form of tax exemptions, land grants et al, it can, within the existing legal framework itself, be termed as a ‘public authority’ and be brought within the purview of the RTI Act,” says the draft.
BCCI’S acting president CK Khanna declined to comment on the draft. In the past, the board’s stated position on the issue has been that it is a private body that does not need to fall under the ambit of the RTI Act.
In 2011, a now-lapsed National Sports Development bill in Parliament had proposed that the BCCI be brought under the purview of the RTI Act.
Experts have made similar recommendations over the years. Former chief justice of India RM Lodha, who headed the committee that suggested reforms in the BCCI, and Justice Mukul Mudgal, who investigated spot-fixing allegations in the Indian Premier League, had both recommended that RTI apply to BCCI. “Eventually it is for Parliament to decide, but only public functions of the BCCI should be under the RTI. Other things pertaining to players’ selection and the sport should be kept out, because that will affect the game of cricket,” Mudgal said on Wednesday.
Lodha said the commission’s proposed move will “help lawmakers to move in the direction of bringing BCCI and its functioning under the RTI regime.”
“It has to be done by amending the RTI Act,” he added. sary APIS (Application Programming Interfaces) by 1 March and all agencies have been directed to make the necessary changes for the use of virtual ID, UID token and limited KYC and operationalise it by 1 June.
“If virtual IDS are made mandatory (and they aren’t) that would address the privacy concern of multiple private entities being able to create detailed profiles of you by using your Aadhaar number. But it wouldn’t address concerns people have relating to security, to exclusion from benefits, to the centralized biometric database, nor to Aadhaar facilitating various governments gaining an overall view of your life,”said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based think tank, pointing out the other gaps to be addressed in the Aadhaar infrastructure exclude a person from law, when their alternate participation is in something which is not a profession (namely politics) and has no prescribed legal qualification, is a fallacious and conceptually confused approach”.