Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 32 of 65

Thread: BCCI not covered by RTI law

  1. Re: BCCI not covered by RTI law


    Bcci should comes under RTI Act.smartly BCCI using country name,Bcci puts Indian image on stakes...how come they uses NGO banner ,cricket should comes under sports ministry technically,



  2. #26
    Posts
    44,017
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    546

    Re: BCCI not covered by RTI law


    As reported by IANS in in.news.yahoo.com on 31 August 2011:
    http://in.news.yahoo.com/maken-flays...135348521.html

    Maken flays BCCI for resisting RTI law

    New Delhi, Aug 31 (IANS) Sports Minister Ajay Maken Wednesday criticised the Indian cricket board for refusing to come under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and said the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) enjoys several exemptions at the expense of tax payers' money.

    'What do they mean by they don't get government funds so shouldn't come under RTI? They are indirectly getting government funds. How about the tax exemptions? How about the land they get? How much did they pay for the Ferozeshah Kotla?' said Maken, a day after the union cabinet rejected the National Sport Development Bill.

    'BCCI does not have to pay entertainment tax; they don't pay for the security provided during the matches by the government. Even the lands for the stadiums they use are generally given to them free of cost. So people have the right to know what is happening in the BCCI. People should know certain things because, at the end of the day, their team represents the country,' said the minister.

    'Let them spell out three or four clauses which they are not happy with. I would drop them. But their financial dealings must come under RTI Act,' the minister said.

    Maken said the sports ministry was not asking National Sports Federations (NSF), including the BCCI, to reveal anything to the government, rather he wanted them to be accountable to the people.

    'We are not saying that they should be accountable to the government, but they must be accountable to the people of the nation because they enjoy certain benefits at the expense of the tax payers' money,' said the sports minister.

    'We are not trying to control any federations. All we want is for them to be transparent and efficient. We want them to come under the RTI and to have age restrictions,' he said.

    On the age limit of 70 set in the bill for NSF office-bearers, Maken said: 'What is their problem with age limit? Doesn't the judiciary, the bureacracy have age limits? Why can't a good example be followed? If someone remains a federation chief for ever, why will vested interests not develop? Seventy is a ripe age and they should realize that they have been around for a long time and now they should make way for younger people to lead the sports bodies.'

    The bill was discussed in the union cabinet Tuesday. According to reports, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Home Minister P.Chidambaram supported the bill but Sharad Pawar, who is the president of the International Cricket Council (ICC), Kapil Sibal, Praful Patel, who also heads the All India Football Federation (AIFF), Kamal Nath and Farooq Abdullah were opposed to it.

    Pawar, who is also a former BCCI president, threatened to take up the issue with UPA chairman Sonia Gandhi.

    The cabinet decided not to table the National Sports Development bill in this session of parliament and asked Maken to rework the draft legislation.

    Maken, however, hoped that the bill would be passed in the next session of parliament.

    'We are waiting for the minutes of the cabinet meeting. Once we get that, we will start reworking the National Sports Development Bill and place it before the cabinet again,' Maken said.

    'We will consult the ministers to know their specific objections and address those as much as possible in the bill. Hopefully, we will be able to get the cabinet's clearance next time around,' he said.

    Maken stressed that the bill was a must for the nation.

    'I am on the job. We need to have Sports Bill. Had the bill been in its place before the Commonwealth Games, we wouldn't have had so many scams during the CWG,' Maken said.
    Twitter: @cjkarira

  3. Re: BCCI not covered by RTI law


    I Don't know if it's right forum to discuss this issues...

    Let's have Official indian cricket team ...approved by Govt...BCCI can't use INDIA name...
    let's see who are our hero, who wants to play for the country but not for money...
    I guess none will join Govt Team...
    India should have one official team... BCCI is club ,it doesn't represent India...
    Media also a culprit when they uses bcci team as Indian team ...
    yesterday headline was "ENGLAND BEAT INDIA ".
    heading should be england beat bcci team.

  4. Cong Leader Backs Maken on Bringing BCCI Under RTI



    Cong Leader Backs Maken on Bringing BCCI Under RTI

    As reported by news.outlookindia.com on Sep 01, 2011:
    http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?733303

    Congress general secretary B K Hariprasad today backed Sports Minister Ajay Maken for his ministry's bid to bring sports bodies, including BCCI, under RTI's ambit.

    "There is nothing wrong if information is sought to be given to people. BCCI should come under the amit of RTI. All sports bodies, where huge money is being spent, should come under RTI because people have a right to know how and where this money is being spent," Hariprasad told reporters here.

    The AICC general secretary is the first leader from the party to have openly come out in support of the bill given the fact that many ministers belonging to Congress as well its crucial alliance partner NCP have strong objections to it.

    He was commentig on the rejection of the National Sports Development Bill by the cabinet on Tuesday after several ministers, having interests in sports bodies, raised objections to many of the clauses, including cap on age and tenure restrictions. Maken was told to redraft the Bill.

    Unfazed by rejection of his Bill, Sports Minister Ajay Maken today he would talk to his cabinet colleagues to convince them but ruled out any such effort with regard to BCCI bigwigs.

    Insisting that BCCI cannot give the "excuse" of being an autonomous body to escape RTI scrutiny, Maken said the Cricket Board should consider itself a public authority under the RTI Act as it "directly or indirectly" benefits from the government.

  5. #29
    Posts
    44,017
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    546

    Re: BCCI not covered by RTI law


    As reported by Abantika Ghosh in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 03 Sep 2011:
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ow/9842719.cms

    BCCI's inclusion in RTI ambit a futile debate

    NEW DELHI: Sports minister Ajay Maken may be engaged in a confrontation with the BCCI brass over transparency, but the debate about whether his now-aborted Sports Development Bill should have sought to extend the Right to Information Act to the cricket body is futile since it can only be applied to entities that are mentioned in the law itself.

    Sources in the government said that the extension of the RTI Act to the BCCI or any other body that is not mentioned in the law will require an amendment of the Act that is a concern of the Department of Personnel and Training (DopT) rather than the sports ministry.

    "Nobody can include any organization under the RTI, unlike in case of exclusion where a notification by the department suffices. The RTI Act, 2005, mentions in Section (2) who all are covered and the matter stands settled, unless there is an amendment. That has to be moved by the department, and not by any other ministry," said a senior DoPT official.

    He cited the case of CBI's exemption from the RTI to explain how that's shorter and easier process than the exclusion of new bodies within the purview of the information law.

    The relevant section defines public authority as "any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by or under the Constitution, by any other law made by Parliament, by any other law made by state legislature, by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government, and includes any body owned, controlled or substantially financed or non-government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government."

    The DoPT source added, "Apparently the provisions do not include a body like BCCI so even if the Sports Development Bill had been enacted, it would have been vulnerable to a challenge from the BCCI in court and there was a possibility that it may even have been struck down."

    Maken's office cites the same sections to justify the minister's stand that BCCI should be under the RTI's ambit. "How does one define 'substantially financed'? The tax exemptions given to the board, the land for the stadia, everything amounts to indirect financing. Some estimates suggest that tax exemption to BCCI in the last three years amounted to Rs 150 crore."

    However, a recent reply in the Lok Sabha, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee had said that income tax exemption to BCCI had been withdrawn in December, 2009, with effect from June, 2006. Of the total assessed tax for 2007-08 and 2008-09, BCCI has paid Rs 249 crore so far.

    BCCI sources point out that it pays for a lot of the services that the sports ministry has cited - from payment of big amounts to state governments for the use of stadia to market rates for the lease of grounds. In any case, to say that the BCCI is "substantially financed" is to stretch the logic to ridiculous length, considering that the body is unanimously acknowledged to be financially independent.

    Whether BCCI is a public authority has been an ongoing legal debate. In 2005, in the Zee Telefilms judgment, the Supreme Court had said: "In the above view of the matter, the second respondent-Board cannot be held to be a State for the purpose of Article 12. Consequently, this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable and the same is dismissed."

    But it maintained that BCCI does discharge some public duties, and hence remains liable under Article 226, which deals with the powers of the HCs to issue certain writs. In 2004, Delhi HC too had said Article 226 cannot be an escape hatch for BCCI for all practical purposes.

    Information commissioner M L Sharma has recently said whether BCCI comes under RTI's ambit could be examined by a bigger bench of the CIC.
    Twitter: @cjkarira

  6. BCCI under RTI Act? Larger bench of CIC may decide


    BCCI under RTI Act? Larger bench of CIC may decide

    As reported by www.dnaindia.com on Nov 1, 2011:
    http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report...decide_1606108

    The Central Information Commission (CIC) may refer to a larger bench of the transparency panel to decide whether the Indian cricket board is a public authority and fell under the ambit of the Right to Information {RTI) Act.

    At the first hearing of the transparency panel in the presence of TV cameras, Information Commmissioner ML Sharma indicated that the matter may be decided by a larger bench. The cameras were ordered to be moved out after Amit Sibal, counsel for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), raised objections.

    "I am not going to decide whether you (BCCI) are a public authority. I had called this hearing on your request so that I can decide whether this matter could be referred to a larger bench. So my jurisdiction at the moment is very limited," Sharma told Sibal.

    The hearing generated huge interest as TV cameras were allowed inside courtroom for the first time with some of the channels planning live coverage of the hearing parked their OB vans in the vicinity.

    But things turned different as soon as Sibal entered the room and asked the Information Commissioner if he was "comfortable" with the recording of the proceedings.

    "Well, we talk of transparency. If you have any objections, I will ask them to stop," Sharma said. Sibal said proceedings should not be recorded after which the Information Commissioner ordered electronic media to stop the recording of proceedings.

    The case relates to RTI applications filed by activist SC Agrawal and one Alok Varshney seeking details of working of the BCCI.

  7. #31
    Posts
    3,420
    Name:
    Atul Patankar
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    49

    Re: BCCI not covered by RTI law


    As reported by Himanshi Dhavan at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on Nov 2, 2011

    NEW DELHI: The nettled issue of whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is a public authority or not hangs in balance, with the Central Information Commission mulling the option of referring the case to a larger bench.

    At the first hearing of the transparency panel in the presence of TV cameras, Information Commissioner M L Sharma indicated that the matter may be decided by a larger bench. The cameras were ordered to be moved out after Amit Sibal, BCCI counsel, raised objections. "I am not going to decide whether you (BCCI) are a public authority. I had called this hearing on your request so that I can decide whether this matter could be referred to a larger bench. So my jurisdiction at the moment is very limited," Sharma told Sibal.

    The hearing generated huge interest as TV cameras were allowed inside the courtroom for the first time with some of the channels planning live coverage of the hearing parked their OB vans in the vicinity.

    But things took a different turn as soon as Sibal entered the room, and asked the Information Commissioner if he was "comfortable" with the recording of the proceedings.

    "Well, we talk of transparency. If you have any objections, I will ask them to stop," Sharma said. Sibal said proceedings should not be recorded after which the Information Commissioner ordered electronic media to stop the recording.

    The case relates to RTI applications filed by activist S C Agrawal and one Alok Varshney seeking details of working of the BCCI. On Tuesday, Agrawal argued that the Board be recognized as a public authority as it was substantially funded by the government and had received facilities like land on lease for a nominal sum.

  8. #32
    Posts
    3,420
    Name:
    Atul Patankar
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    49

    Re: BCCI not covered by RTI law


    Amit Sibal, son of our esteemed minister, represents BCCI in front of CIC? Well well. Then the conclusion seems forgone.

    If we count the Cabinet ministers and leaders of opposition in BCCI, it seems quite unlikely that CICs will go against their collective wisdom!

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread



About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android