The Sports Ministry has provisionally granted the status of National Sports Federation (NSF) to the Federation of Motor Sports Clubs of India (FMSCI), a significant upgrade for the body that is coordinating with the government to bring Formula 1 (F1) back to the country.

The FMSCI had applied for recognition on June 11 this year and the approval of its request means that it would now be eligible for financial grants from the Ministry.

“The request of Federation of Motor Sports Clubs of India (FMSCI) for provisional recognition as National Sports Federation (NSF) has been considered and it has been decided to grant provisional recognition to FMSCI as an NSF with effect from the date of issue of this letter,” the Ministry order dated July 23 stated.

The Ministry has asked FMSCI, which is based in Chennai and headed by Arindam Ghosh, to amend its Constitution/Memorandum of Association (MoA) to conform with the provisions of the National Sports Governance Act and the rules framed in it within stipulated time-lines.

FMSCI has been in regular talks with the Ministry on not just the issue of recognition but to also chart the way forward for F1’s India comeback.

To grant recognition to the body which came into existence in 1971, the government has relaxed some norms related to the minimum State units affiliation required for NSF status.

The Ministry also stated that it will revoke the recognition if the body fails to comply with its guidelines on financial probity, anti-doping measures, governance structure or if it indulges in misrepresentation of facts.

Last month, Sports Minister Manuskh Mandaviya had announced that a Task Force would be instituted ‘as soon as possible’ to assess the challenges and benefits of hosting major motorsport events here.

The Task Force will evaluate the economic, tourism, and investment benefits arising from hosting major motorsport events in India and also identify key priorities, infrastructure requirements, and operational needs for the sustainable development of the sector.

The Task Force will have representation from FMSCI, Sports Ministry, the State Government (in this case Uttar Pradesh as Buddh International Circuit is in Greater Noida), and the facility owners. The Minister is pushing to have a F1 race in India by 2028.

India hosted F1 from 2011 to 2013 before the race was dropped from the calendar owing to taxation and financial reasons.

F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali has acknowledged the huge interest in India but had refrained from giving a timeline for its return, saying it would take the right investment and people for the plan to work out.

As per an F1 statement in December last year, the fanbase in India for the sport stood at 79 million. In less than six months, that number has grown to 98 million.

The RTI Act was originally designed to scrutinise the state, a limit that the BCCI has repeatedly tested thanks to its outsized power. The BCCI is a private body that operates commercially and lacks direct public financing. RTI disclosures could expose competitive information and compromise the flexibility required to govern a sport, especially since the BCCI already has anti-corruption measures and comes under judicial review if required. If the BCCI is brought under the Act’s remit, there is also a risk of political forces abusing transparency requirements to exert greater influence on cricket administration. Even so, the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) recent decision to exclude the BCCI from the RTI Act is unlikely to go uncontested because the body has also monopolised a national sport. The BCCI benefits from national symbolism, police deployment at matches, concessional land allotments, and State hospitality; uses public stadium infrastructure; enjoys the regulatory privileges accruing to its monopoly status; and negotiates with foreign boards in ways that sometimes overlap with diplomacy. These liberties have thus sustained civil society concerns about being unable to scrutinise its conflicts of interest and governance arrangements.

Under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the BCCI is not a constitutional or statutory body and was not created by government notification, leaving the matter to turn on whether it can be said to be under state control or financing. Following disputes in 2005 and 2013, the Supreme Court repeatedly said in 2015-16, when the BCCI was adopting the Lodha committee recommendations, that it performs public duties. The Law Commission furthered this position in 2018 because, it added, the BCCI also serves as a National Sports Federation without the Sports Ministry recognising it as one and received tax exemptions worth ₹2,100 crore in 1997-2007 alone, a figure the Commission interpreted as foregone state revenue. Subsequently, former Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu ruled the BCCI to be a public authority under Section 2(h). The Madras High Court stayed the order, and the CIC has now reversed the ruling. The CIC has admitted that the BCCI exerts a significant influence on public life while insisting that its decision is based on Section 2(h) alone. There is a contradiction between writ jurisdiction applying to the BCCI — as the Court affirmed in 2015 — even as the body is private enough to conceal its internal records. At this time, Section 2(h) should be amended to include any body discharging public duties, especially with monopoly power, perhaps by creating a category that simultaneously protects the BCCI’s commercial interests. Courts must also treat tax exemptions as a form of state grant.