As long as our lawmakers keep ignoring the importance of laws to deal with match-fixing and its variants, no court in the land can convict any cricketer who might be involved in fixing.
At the turn of the century, when the issue first shocked a nation, skipper Mohammed Azharuddin was among those banned by the Board of Control for Cricket in India. But it was quickly realised that there was no specific law to deal with fixing in sport.
There was an outcry then, the inadequacies of trying those who transgressed under the “cheating” laws were pointed out, and the need for a sports fraud bill was emphasized. Nothing happened. So far no bill has been passed in the 17 years since the subject first came up. In other words, match-fixing and spot-fixing are not illegal in India. It is a lacuna crying to be covered.
In 2012, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the case against Azharuddin was not proved to its satisfaction. The BCCI did not appeal.
The Prevention of Dishonesty in Sports Bill was ready in 2001; others followed: The National Sports Development Code (2011), the Draft National Sports Development Bill (2013), and the Draft Prevention of Sporting Fraud Bill (2013). In 2016, the then President of the BCCI and a ruling party Member of Parliament Anurag Thakur introduced the National Sports Ethics Commission Bill which borrowed from the earlier bills. Yet, nothing.
Now the Kerala High Court has quashed the BCCI’s life ban on Shanthakumaran Sreeshanth who had been in the doghouse since the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal. That was the starting point for reforms in the BCCI, after first the Justice Mudgal Commission and then the Justice Lodha Commission submitted reports.
For want of an adequate law, Sreeshanth was tried under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). It was nobody’s case that the fast bowler was a terrorist or involved in organised crime. It was like using a road roller to trap a fly. There is a not-so-subtle difference between bowling a deliberate no-ball on schedule and blowing up a building, even if the two key words are anagrams.
Air-tight
Any law dealing with fraud in sport must be air-tight and stand up in a court. But when there is no law to begin with, everything is in favour of the suspect. Not surprisingly, both Azharuddin and Sreeshanth have interpreted the rulings of the courts as judgements absolving them of fixing a cricket match.
This is not strictly true even if for the sake of argument one concedes they could be factually correct. The governing body of cricket has only got to believe that the “balance of probabilities” is against the player to call for a ban. But the player can still take the BCCI to court in the absence of a specific law. And usually the BCCI runs out of steam by then.
Perhaps our lawmakers think that a sports fraud bill is not sexy. After all, fixing can be seen as a victimless crime. No one is murdered, none injured, and the loss is mainly to the credibility of a popular sport. That pales when compared to the statistics for murder, for example. In 2015, the last year for which statistics are available, the National Crime Records Bureau recorded 32,127 murders in the country. What’s that compared to a deliberate no-ball?
Dangerous route
Yet, this is a dangerous route to take. Sport is an artificial activity, it is true. In the deepest sense of the term, it is meaningless. Yet it is this very lack of meaning that makes us inject it with purpose, and hold it to the highest moral standards. If sport cannot be pure, then what area of human activity is left for honesty and integrity and all the values we aspire to but struggle to attain?
The courts have their hands tied — they have to follow the law. And the definitions of “cheating” do not go far.
In 17 years, the BCCI has concluded that a number of players, from internationals to local stars have been guilty of match-fixing, spot-fixing, or not reporting knowledge of these “crimes” to the authorities. Yet, so long as there is a reluctance to pass a law in Parliament, there cannot be a fair trial for those who are hauled up for these activities.
As a Delhi Court said in the Sreeshant case, “In view of the huge vacuum of law in this regard in the realm of law, this court is helpless to proceed further under any of the penal statutes.”
Azharuddin might be innocent, Sreeshanth might be innocent, but we need to give the courts the power to punish the guilty. Punitive reasons apart, there are exemplary reasons too. Young players cannot be allowed to begin their careers believing that they can “get away”. And that will happen if we don’t appreciate the importance of specific laws to deal with fixing in sport.
