The Sreesanth verdict showed why the BCCI remains incapable of preventing or punishing match fixing

The chain of recent events around the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s ban on S Sreesanth for allegedly being involved in spot-fixing during the 2013 Indian Premier League has followed a depressingly familiar pattern for those who have followed the BCCI’s attempt to address fixing in cricket.

A high-profile announcement, involvement of investigative agencies, much drama over allegations, a ban from being involved in Indian cricket, discharge from offences, challenge to ban in court, ban lifted by court. This was the set of events which happened with Ajay Jadeja, with Mohammad Azharuddin, with Ajay Sharma and now with S Sreesanth.

The Kerala High Court’s judgment lifting the ban on Sreesanth is a mish-mash of sound reasoning and some dubious speculation. While much of the judgement is right about the petition against the BCCI being maintainable (the issue was no longer in doubt after the Supreme Court’s recent judgement in the BCCI case), the High Court’s reasoning when it comes to the merits of Sreesanth’s claim that he has been unfairly banned is a bit dubious.

The MCOCA ruling

To go back to the events once again. Sreesanth is alleged to have received a sum of Rs 10 lakhs from a bookie Chandresh Chandubhai Patel, through his friend Jiju Janardhan to bowl a certain number of runs in a given over during the 2013 edition of the Indian Premier League. This was the infamous “towel-gate” where Sreesanth kept a towel in his pocket to indicate his willingness to be part of the fix.

The trial court in Delhi discharged Sreesanth from the case on the ground that the facts did not suggest an offence was made out under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act from the chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation which investigated the case. The MCOCA is only applicable here because it has been extended to Delhi as well and India does not have any law which penalises fixing in cricket matches (unlike for instance, England and Australia). The charges under MCOCA, that Sreesanth was linked to organized crime in some way, was always a bit of a stretch given the facts of case, and the CBI was not able to establish even a prima facie link to Sreesanth’s acts and organised crime.

Yet, the BCCI banned him for a sound reason – merely because while spot fixing may not be a crime under Indian law, it does not mean that Sreesanth could not suffer consequences under the BCCI’s anti-corruption code. A discharge from a criminal case is not an acquittal. An acquittal means that the court has found certain facts to be necessarily true or untrue and given a decision accordingly. A discharge simply means that on the evidence, even taken at face value, an offence is not made out. The difference therefore is this: even if the evidence taken at face value does not suggest a crime was committed, they can still lead to other consequences in law, such as, in this case, a life-ban.

A problematic investigation

Where the BCCI got complacent was to depend on the CBI for investigating the whole case. Like with Mohammad Azharuddin’s case, the CBI’s own investigation was not entirely foolproof and its investigation not the most thorough and complete anyway. Even though the BCCI did not need to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt in order to ban Sreesanth, its approach was not exactly rigorous either. Serious lapses in the inquiry are pointed out by the High Court – not presenting all evidence, not confronting Sreesanth with the evidence it had, et al.

While it has doubted the evidence against Sreesanth, the High Court’s reasoning for doing so is itself dubious. Firstly, because it was not sitting in appeal over the decision of the BCCI to see if their fact-finding was right or wrong, and second, even if it was, it has overturned a finding purely on the basis of a conjecture – that it was impossible for Sreesanth to have retained the money despite failing to fulfil his part of the obligation.

The Kerala HC went beyond its ambit

When something is impossible in law, it does not relate to how someone is expected to behave but something that cannot happen because of natural laws. It’s impossible for someone to deliver a letter a day before it was sent, but it is not impossible for an individual to score 300 runs in a one-day game. In re-evaluating the evidence afresh to exonerate Sreesanth, the High Court has gone beyond its ambit in a Writ Petition where the grounds for review are limited. It has completely ignored the fact that Sreesanth failed to report an approach by a bookie and could still have been banned by the BCCI under the Code.

While one can find faults with the way in which the BCCI has approached this case and the complacency with which it handles match fixing, the High Court’s approach is also not necessarily sound in law. One hopes that the Supreme Court is approached on this matter, if nothing else to set the law straight for future such instance should they occur.

Irrespective, the BCCI has to seriously reconsider its systems for probing and penalising players caught violating the anti-corruption code. The BCCI’s success and wealth is traceable only to cricket and the fact that the game still enjoys a certain level of credibility among fans in India. Should it be continue to remain incapable of preventing or punishing match fixing and other such misconduct in the game, the consequences for Indian cricket will be dire.

Do you prefer your favourite sports stories delivered straight to your inbox every weekday? We have got you covered. Subscribe to The Field’s newsletter.