INDIAN POLITY

BCCI and RTI Act

BCCI’s Stand on RTI

Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) argues that it is a private and autonomous body.
Therefore, it claims it does not qualify as a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).

Section 2(h) of RTI Act

- Section 2(h) defines a public authority as:
  - Any authority or institution established by: the Constitution, Parliamentary law, State law, or government notification.
- It also includes bodies that are: owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government.

BCCI’s Legal Argument

Article 12 of the Constitution

BCCI argues it does not fall under the definition of “State” in Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Article 12 includes: Union Government, State Governments, Legislatures, and local or other authorities under government control.

Central Information Commission (CIC)

- The Central Information Commission (CIC) is an independent apex authority responsible for dealing with complaints and adjudicating appeals under the Right to Information Act.

It examines matters related to central government departments, ministries, public sector enterprises, financial institutions, and offices functioning under the Central Government and Union Territories.

The CIC was set up by the Central Government in 2005 under the RTI Act. Therefore, it is a statutory body and not a constitutional body.
The Commission consists of one Chief Information Commissioner along with a maximum of ten Information Commissioners.
The Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners are appointed by the President of India on the advice of a selection committee.
This committee is headed by the Prime Minister and also includes the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
The Chief Information Commissioner and other Information Commissioners hold office for a period of three years or until they attain the age of 65 years, whichever occurs earlier. After completing their tenure, they cannot be reappointed.
The President of India is empowered to remove the Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner from office.

Supreme Court and Revival of Sedition Proceedings

Context: The Supreme Court of India allowed revival of proceedings under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code for accused persons who consent to continue their trials.

Background: Freeze on Sedition Cases in 2022

In May 2022, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had suspended all pending sedition proceedings across the country.
The court had raised concerns regarding the misuse of Section 124A, a colonial-era provision introduced in 1898.

Colonial-Era Nature of Sedition Law

Both the Union government and the Supreme Court acknowledged that Section 124A was: a colonial law, unsuitable for present-day India, and inconsistent with modern democratic values.

Government’s Stand

The Union government referred to Prime Minister statement during “Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav” emphasizing the need to remove outdated colonial laws and practices.

Concerns over Free Speech

The Supreme Court observed that sedition law had a “chilling effect” on: freedom of speech, civil liberties, and democratic dissent.
The provision carries punishment up to life imprisonment.

Reference to I.R. Coelho Judgment

The court’s earlier observations aligned with the judgment in I.R. Coelho versus State of Tamil Nadu (2007), which emphasized that laws must evolve with changing times and societal progress.

May 21, 2026 Clarification

The Supreme Court clarified that lower courts may continue deciding sedition cases on merits where accused persons seek speedy disposal and closure of proceedings.

Constitutional Challenge Still Pending

The constitutionality of Section 124A is still under challenge before the Supreme Court.
Multiple petitions, including S.G. Vombatkere versus Union of India, argue that the law violates Fundamental Rights such as: freedom of speech and expression, personal liberty, right to life, and equality before law.

Uniform Civil Code

Context: The Union Home Minister has stated that the government has formulated special provisions to ensure that all tribal communities are exempted from the purview of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), thereby guaranteeing that their rights are fully protected.

About the Uniform Civil Code

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) paves the way for the creation of a single, nationwide law applicable to all religious communities regarding personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption.

Currently, India’s personal law framework is complex, with each religion adhering to its own specific laws.

Personal Laws in India

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, governs Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists.
Muslim Personal Law governs Muslims.
The Indian Succession Act, 1925, applies to Christians, Parsis, and Jews.
The Special Marriage Act provides a framework for solemnizing marriages between individuals of different religious faiths and for registering such marriages through a Marriage Officer.

Key Features of the Uniform Civil Code

Establishes a common set of laws governing civil matters that are common to all religions.
Eliminates discriminatory practices within personal laws, particularly those concerning women’s rights.
Separates civil law from religion, ensuring that the laws remain secular in nature.
Promotes social harmony by fostering a shared legal identity.
Streamlines the legal complexities that arise from the existence of diverse personal laws. Legal Framework and Articles Governing the Uniform Civil Code:
Article 44: A Directive Principle of State Policy mandating that the State shall endeavor to secure a uniform civil code for all citizens.
Article 14: Ensures equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws.
Article 25: Safeguards freedom of religion, raising questions regarding the balancing of religious practices with legal uniformity.