Central Information Commission
Jay B Baghel vs Sports Authority Of India on 13 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SAOIN/A/2024/110345 &
CIC/SAOIN/A/2024/110346
Jay B Baghel .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ju-Jitsu Association of India,
"DEEP-GIRI", H. NO. 2-361/1,
Tulasi Nagar, Polysheet,
Kathgodam, Nainital - 263126 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.10.2025
Date of Decision : 12.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Second Appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common, and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 13.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 18.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.03.2024
Page 1 of 9
1. CIC/SAOIN/A/2024/110345
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Dear Sir I would like to request through you, as an officer of the Youth Affairs Department in the Ministry of Sports, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi to obtain answers from the officials of the Ju Jitsu Association of India who hold positions like National President Secretary General or Treasurer regarding the following matters 1 Did you organize the Ju Jitsu National Championship on 27th to 31st March 2023, where each player was charged Rs 3400, resulting in a total registration of 1225 players and a total sum of Rs 4165000 2 In addition to this separate registrations of Rs 5000 for Junior and Senior teams were collected 3 For the Ju Jitsu Youth Championship 2023 in Kazakhstan an extra fee ranging from Rs 50000 to Rs 60000 was collected 4 After the World Championship in 2022 a fee of Rs 10000 collected from players intended for the National Federations funds was replaced by a fixed package amount and every player was charged at least Rs 50000 more 5I would like to know through your help how much money the Madhya Pradesh Association received for each child from the fees of Rs 3400 for the National Championship 6 Please provide information on the total fees received by the National Federation from January 1st until now, and how the money has been utilized or in which account it has been deposited 7 Earlier when the Ju Jitsu National Association did not have recognition from the Ministry of Sports they charged only Rs 1500 for the National Championship which included accommodation and food Now when the National Federation has government recognition and financial support for organizing the National Championship, why are players being charged such high fees."Page 2 of 9
2. The CPIO, Sports Authority of India furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.11.2023 stating as under:
"The information pertains to concerned National Sports Federations. Therefore, the RTI is being transferred to Ju-Jitsu Association of India under section 6(3) of RTI act, 2005 for providing the applicant with requisite information under intimation to this office."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 27.12.2023, held as under:
"The query raised in the instant appeal is that no response is received from Ju-Jitsu Association of India to the RTI.
On perusal of the documents, it is seen that CPIO (TEAMS Division) has transferred the RTI under section 6(3) of RTI act, 2005 to CPIO of Ju-Jitsu Association of India for providing information directly to the applicant.
Therefore, the appeal of Sh. Jay Baghel is disposed off."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
2. CIC/SAOIN/A/2024/110346 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 30.11.2023 First appeal filed on : 18.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.12.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.03.2024 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"I would like to obtain information from you about the maximum age for athletes in the sport of Ju Jitsu and at what age they can participate in the following competitions Asian Games Page 3 of 9 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games Asian Beach Games National Championship World Championship 2 If there is a rule regarding age within the Ju Jitsu Association of India I would like to know about it Additionally I would like to inquire in which rule, be it Ju Jitsu International Federation JJIF Ju Jitsu Asian Union JJAU or Ju Jitsu Association of India JAI it is mentioned that athletes above 40 years of age cannot participate in the adult category 3 Ju Jitsu Association of India mentioned that this new rule for athletes above 40 years of age was created I would like to know when this rule was established when the meeting took place to create this rule, and who attended the meeting. How many members of the EB board were present 4 Through which member of the EB board was the question raised to create a rule that restricts athletes above 40 years of age to the masters category only or whether they can still participate in other categories Do they have the authority to create such a rule 5 In the second query I would like to inquire whether any national sports organization whether recognized by the government or not, can prohibit an athlete from participating based on their age, even if the athlete is prepared to undergo any form of trial"
6. The CPIO, Sports Authority of India furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.11.2023 stating as under:
"The information pertains to concerned National Sports Federations. Therefore, the RTI is being transferred to Ju-Jitsu Association of India under section 6(3) of RTI act, 2005 for providing the applicant with requisite information under intimation to this office."
7. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 27.12.2023, held as under:
"The query raised in the instant appeal is that no response is received from Ju-Jitsu Association of India to the RTI.Page 4 of 9
On perusal of the documents, it is seen that CPIO (TEAMS Division) has transferred the RTI under section 6(3) of RTI act, 2005 to CPIO of Ju-Jitsu Association of India for providing information directly to the applicant.
Therefore, the appeal of Sh. Jay Baghel is disposed off."
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
9. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is available on record.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Advocate Manmeet Singh Gulati and Advocate Aathira Pillai, representative of the Respondent, attended the hearing in person.
10. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. He added that Ju- Jitsu Association of India was receiving grants from the Government and was recognised by the Government till December 2022. He further added that the averred tournament held in March 2023 and recognition of Ju-Jitsu Association of India ended in 2022.
11. The representative of the Respondent submitted that Ju-Jitsu Association of India is a Private Sports Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having registration number S. No. 253 of 2014 and does not fall under the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He further apprised the Bench that Ju-Jitsu Association of India is not receiving any direct and/or indirect funding from the Government of India. He further sought two weeks' time from the Bench to file their written submissions.
12. The Commission orally directed both parties to file their written submissions within two weeks.
13. After conclusion of the hearing, a written submission has been received from Shri Amit Arora, Secretary (Ju-Jitsu Association of India), vide letter dated 14.10.2025, informing as under:
"1. It is submitted that the Right to Information (hereinafter referred to as "the RTI") Application bearing No. SAOIN/R/E/23/00549 filed by the Appellant Page 5 of 9 ought to be dismissed at the threshold for the reason that the Respondent is a Private Sports Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having registration number no. S. No. 253 of 2014 and does not fall under the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005. A copy of the Certificate of Registration dated 31.07.2007 is annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE-A.
2. It is pertinent to mention herein that according to Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, a "public authority" is anybody or institution that is:
established by the constitution, created by a law passed by Parliament or a State Legislature established by a government notification, owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the Government, whether directly or indirectly.
3. Further, it is pertinent to mention that as per Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), only Public Authorities are under an obligation to provide information sought under the Act. Further, Private entities/Authorities do not fall under such obligations.
4. Furthermore, the definition of the term "Public Authority' is enumerated in Section 2, sub-clause (h) of the Act, as follows:
"Public Authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted-
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament,
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature,
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government and includes any-
(1) body owned, controlled or substantially financed
(ii) non-government organization substantially financed, directly and indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.
5. It is pertinent to mention herein that the "substantial financing" does not necessarily mean more than 50% of the funds. However, in the case of the Respondent, the Respondent was not funded by the Government of India. Therefore, the obligation in the case of substantial financing is also not covered and become an obligation upon the Respondent to disclose its Private documents.
6. It is submitted that the said RTI Application filed by the Appellant is in revenge to his refusal to participate further in the events of the Respondent Association because the Respondent Association has received several complaints against the Appellant and also certain Female players had also complained against the Appellant to the Respondent Association. Below is one of the extracts available on Google against the Appellant;
"In an episode of Roadies Revolution (2020), contestant Dr. Pratibha Singh, a jujutsu player, shared her personal experience of a harassment incident on a flight. She recounted how a male passenger touched her inappropriately, and she used her self-defence skills to confront and subdue him".
A copy of the Times of India article dated 01.03.2020 is annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE-B. Page 6 of 9 Thereafter, "JU-JITSU" Senior National Championship was held at Devas, MP, 2022 and again, several complaints were received by the Respondent Association against the Appellant.
Copies of several complaints filed against the Appellant are annexed herewith and are marked as ANNEXURE-C (COLLY).
Therefore, the Respondent Association, in order to take action against the Appellant, refused the participation of the Appellant in any of its further events.
7. Further, it is submitted that the Appellant actually levelled serious allegations against the Respondent Association in the form of RTI queries in order to ruin the esteemed reputation of the Respondent Association by filing RTI applications before the Sports Authority of India to give trouble and difficulties to it in conduct of events and sports and also to put it in unnecessary litigation and/or cases.
8. It is pertinent to mention herein that the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 was amended to clarify that only sports bodies receiving direct government funding will fall under the RTI Act. It is reiterated herein again that the Respondent is not receiving any direct and/or indirect funding from the Government of India.
CHAPTER VII "PRIVILEGES AND DUTIES OF RECOGNISED SPORTS ORGANISATION 14 (1) Only a recognised sports organisation shall be eligible to receive grants or any other financial assistance from the Central Government. (2) A recognised sports organisation, receiving grants or any other financial assistance from the Central Government under sub-section (1) or from a State Government, shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with respect to the utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance.
A copy of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-D.
9. It is submitted that the Appellant, just in order to defame the reputation of the Respondent Association and also to misuse the private documents of the Respondent's Association, has filed the present application with mala fide intentions. Therefore, the said demanded disclosure under his RTI application is not necessary.
10.Further, it is submitted that the demanded disclosure is exempted under Section 8 of the Act.
11. The Respondent herein craves leave of this Hon'ble Commission to file its detailed reply against the conduct of the Appellant herein and demand disclosures of the Appellant in his RTI Application, if required by this Hon'ble Commission.
12. Further, the Respondent Association is also seeking a date of physical hearing from this Hon'ble Commission if this Hon'ble Commission is not satisfied with the present Objections/Submissions raised by the Respondent herein."
Page 7 of 9Decision:
14. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the primary question that needs to be addressed in this case is whether Ju-Jitsu Association of India is a public authority as defined under the RTI Act or not. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines a public authority as under:-
Section 2(h): "public authority" means any authority or body, or institution of self-government established or constituted,--
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any--
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
15. The aforementioned criteria, thus, laid down in the Act determine whether an organization qualifies to be a public authority or not. It is observed that there is no averment of the Appellant which indicates that the Ju-Jitsu Association of India satisfies any of the criterion mentioned hereinabove to qualify as a public authority under the RTI Act. Even after the oral direction of the Commission, no materials have been made available by the Appellant to show that Ju-Jitsu Association of India would fall within the definition of Section 2 (h) of the Act.
16. On the other hand, the Respondent vide written submission dated 14.10.2025, informed the Bench that Ju-Jitsu Association of India is a Private Sports Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and does not fall under the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Respondent has confirmed that Ju-Jitsu Association of India is neither substantially financed nor controlled or owned by the Government. While determining whether an organisation falls within the ambit of the RTI Act, the Apex Court has made a very pertinent observation in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others vs. State of Kerala and others [Civil Appeal No. 9017/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.24290 of 2012)] vide decision dated 07.10.2013, which is as follows:
Page 8 of 9".....40. The burden to show that a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed or that a non-government organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information or the appropriate Government and can be examined by the State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission as the case may be, when the question comes up for consideration..."
17. The Respondent vide written submission dated 14.10.2025, apprised the Bench that the Respondent Association has received several complaints of misconduct against the Appellant due to which he was prohibited to participate further in the events of the Respondent Association and therefore, the Appellant in revenge has filed the instant RTI Application to defame the reputation of the Respondent Association.
18. In the given circumstances and in the absence of materials to show that Ju-Jitsu Association of India is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government, it is therefore, held that Ju- Jitsu Association of India will not fall within the definition of "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be given to the Appellant in the instant cases.
The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Ju-Jitsu Association of India, "DEEP- GIRI", H. NO. 2-361/1, Tulasi Nagar, Polysheet, Kathgodam, Nainital - 263126 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)