In a 'fix' over legal hurdles

The Karnataka High Court recently delivered a verdict, acquitting six people accused of involvement in match-fixing and betting in the 2019 Karnataka Premier League. While the judgment in itself didn’t come as a massive surprise, given that precedents exist where cricketers and bookies have been absolved because of legalities, what piqued many people’s interest and perhaps sparked a tinge of concern was the observation by the single-judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar that match-fixing didn’t constitute a criminal offence and hence was not punishable under the Indian Penal Code.

The High Court ruled that Section 420 IPC (cheating) could not be applied to the accused.

“It is true that if a player indulges in match-fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game,” the court observed. “But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence. The match-fixing may indicate dishonesty, indiscipline and mental corruption of a player and for this purpose the BCCI is the authority to initiate disciplinary action.

“If the bye-laws of the BCCI provide for initiation of disciplinary action against a player, such an action is permitted but registration of an FIR on the ground that a crime punishable under section 420 IPC has been committed, is not permitted. Even if the entire charge sheet averments are taken to be true on their face value, they do not constitute an offence,” the court further said.

In the absence of a law dealing with match-fixing, law-enforcing authorities have booked suspects under various laws -- from Prevention of Corruption Act (1988) to section 420 of IPC to Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999 -- but they all have failed to withstand the scrutiny of the law. Since the unearthing of the 2000 match-fixing scandal that rocked the cricket world, it’s been a sort of wild goose chase for Indian law-enforcement agencies to get the accused indicted by a court of law - be it the match-fixing scandal in 2000, spot-fixing in IPL 2013 or now the KPL racket.

So, what are the implications of the latest court verdict? Does it discourage the police, who have the executive powers, from acting on such cases, and embolden people who can influence the outcome of a match to carry on with such activities? The answer depends on which side of the fence you are on.

“On fraud, we will not be able to raise this contention again, it’s going to be difficult,” says additional Advocate General Dhyan Chinnappa, who argued on behalf of the defendants, the state of Karnataka.

“The problem is there is a (Retd Justice) Lodha Committee report saying that the present law is insufficient to deal with cases of this nature and therefore they should come out with a new law,” continued Chinnappa, referring to the Supreme Court-appointed panel to bring reforms to the BCCI administration in the wake of the 2013 spot-fixing/betting scandal.

The Lodha panel had recommended a two-pronged strategy to tackle unethical practices in cricket. One was to legalise betting with “strong safeguards”, the other to make match/spot-fixing a criminal offence.

“... But we feel we can still bring this (alleged KPL match-fixing) within the definition of section 420 of the IPC,” says Chinnappa.

“Ultimately, it is the public who are cheated. They are not giving money to watch a movie but a match which is fairly played. And that’s most important in every field. But if you have already fixed a match, it becomes a movie and no longer the match because there’s someone directing as to who should bowl how or bat... I might as well watch a movie, right? I go to watch a match with the assumption that it will be fair, that’s why I pay the money.”

Chinnappa says he has recommended to the Karnataka government that the case be fought in the Supreme Court. But given the failure of the existing legal options in past instances, isn’t it time a separate central law was introduced to deal with match-fixing as a crime, specifically recognising the different kinds of match-fixing and prescribing appropriate punishments?

In 2020, the Sports Law and Policy Centre (Bengaluru) and the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy (Delhi) collaborated to publish an exhaustive report - Fixing It - on match manipulation in sports in the Indian context. The report studies in-depth the 2000 match-fixing and 2013 spot-fixing scandals and strongly recommends a separate law to deal with corruption in sports.

“... Despite having strong reason to believe that some players were involved in match-fixing and players like Azharuddin and Ajay Sharma (in 2000 match-fixing) admitting to having taken money from bookmakers in exchange for favours in relation to matches, the CBI could not convert the PE (preliminary enquiry) into an RC (regular case) as it was unable to establish that these cricketers had clearly violated any existing penal legislation in India,” says the report.

In England, there is a law specifically dealing with match-fixing and that’s how they could implicate the Pakistani trio of Salman Butt, Mohammed Asif and Mohammad Amir, who served jail sentences ranging from six to 36 months for spot-fixing in 2010.

The Karnataka High Court order also points out to the same lacuna in the Indian legal system.

“One point commonly urged by all the counsel for the petitioners is that match-fixing is not an offence in any law,” the court emphasised. “And offence under section 420 of IPC cannot be imputed against the petitioners for, the essential ingredients for the said offence to constitute are not forthcoming in the charge sheet. Even if it is assumed for argument sake that the petitioners did involve in match fixing, it will not constitute an offence and at best it is breach of the Code of Conduct prescribed to the players by the BCCI.”

BCCI Anti-Corruption Unit chief Shabbir Hussain Khandwawala weighs in with his views. “It’s always better if we get some relief from courts, but the police have to examine where exactly they failed in convincing the honourable court about the case,” he begins. “When it comes to application of legal provisions, the viewpoint of the court might be different from that of the police.

“If the court has come to a conclusion about this particular case, one has to respect that... But my point is that match-fixing will be done by whom? The players and some “agents” and if we can establish credible evidence, we have got the powers to impose bans on such players and elements,” he says, citing the example of former Zimbabwe skipper Brendan Taylor, who was banned on Friday by the International Cricket Council from all cricketing activities for three and half years for delayed reporting of a match-fixing approach.

The problem, however, doesn’t end with the BCCI or the ICC acting against the offenders.

As the Sports Law and Policy Centre report says, “... Sports governing bodies do not have the jurisdiction or power to penalise members of the external network in a match manipulation transaction, such as intermediaries, bookmakers, punters and syndicate operators...

“While bans and suspensions of players may serve to deter players from engaging in match manipulation, it would have no impact on the instigators and facilitators of match fixing, who stand to benefit from the match manipulation by a greater degree than players.”

Khandwawala agrees a fresh approach may be needed in the wake of the court order. “Now that this judgment has come, we will have to go through that. And if the need is there, the act will have to be there.”

Watch latest videos by DH here: