JUSTICE-MUDGAL-IPL-PROBE-COMMITTEE-REPORT-final-feb-8

2014JUSTICE MUDGALIPL PROBE COMMITTEEA REPORT ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF BETTING ANDSPOT/MATCH FIXING IN THE INDIAN PREMIERLEAGUE- SEASON 6Members:1. Mr. Justice Mukul MudgalRetd. Chief Justice Punjab and Haryana High CourtChairman2. Mr. L. Nageswar RaoAdditional Solicitor General of India3. Mr. Nilay DuttaSenior AdvocateSecretary:Mr. Vidushpat SinghaniaAdvocateResearch Associates:1. Ms. Abantee DuttaAdvocate2. Mr. Gautam BharadwajAdvocate

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 20141I have had the privilege of going through thecomprehensive report prepared by Mr Justice MukulMudgal and deem it necessary to add my thoughts on thesubject.GENESIS OF THE PROBE:On the intervening night of 15/16.05.2013, a team of theSpecial Cell, Delhi Police (hereinafter referred to as theDelhi Police) apprehended and arrested four players(amongst others) in connection with FIR No. 20/2013dated 09.05.2013 under Section 120B/420 1 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as FIR 20/2013).The arrested players were namely:1. S. Sreesanth, an International Indian cricket playerplaying for the Indian Premier League, (hereinafterreferred to as IPL) team, Rajasthan Royals;2. Ankeet Chavan, a player of the IPL team, RajasthanRoyals;3. Ajith Chandela, a player of the IPL team, RajasthanRoyals;4. Amit Kumar Singh, an ex-player of IPL team,Rajasthan RoyalsThe allegations as per the FIR No. 20/2013 against theplayers were that the players had allegedly indulged inspot/session fixing during certain matches played by IPL1 Subsequently on 03.06.2013, after obtaining due approval from thecompetent authority, Section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control ofOrganised Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as MCOCA) were addedto the said FIR/ ongoing investigation.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 20142team, Rajasthan Royals, in the ongoing IPL, Season 6 byunderperforming or making other players underperform,in pre decided overs of the IPL matches. The Delhi Police,on the same day had also arrested a number of bookies,who were allegedly involved in conspiring with players tofix spots and using such advance informations, about theoccurrence of an event, made windfall gains through illegalbetting in the ongoing IPL matches.Taking cognizance of the arrests of the aforesaid players bythe Delhi Police in FIR 20/2013 on charges of spot fixing,the Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafterreferred to as the BCCI) under its Rules and Regulationsappointed a Commissioner, Mr. Ravi Sawani on18.05.2013 to make a preliminary inquiry into inter aliathe alleged acts of spot fixing and furnish a report within30 days of its appointment. Mr. Ravi Sawani, submittedan interim report on 05.06.2013 and subsequently a finalReport on 08.07.2013; and having found all the fourarrested players guilty of offences under the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants, recommended to theDisciplinary Committee of the BCCI to impose suchsanctions as may be commensurate to the offencecommitted, in order to send out a strong signal indicating azero tolerance policy of the BCCI to any corruption in thesport.On the basis of another independent investigation, theCrime Branch of the Mumbai Police (hereinafter referred toas the Mumbai Police) carried out a raid on 14.05.2013 on

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 20143the premises of one Ramesh Vyas, a known bookie inMumbai, who was providing an illegal telephone exchangefacility enabling connection between the Indian andoverseas bookies, in connection with CR No 61/2013under section 465,466,468,471,419,420,212, 34 read withSection 120 B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section4,5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act read withSection 66(A) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000(hereinafter referred to as CR No. 61/2013). Pursuant tothis investigation, the telephone number of one Mr.Virendra Randhawa @ Mr. Vindoo Dara Singh (hereinafterreferred to as Vindoo Dara Singh); a resident of Mumbai,had also been placed under interception by the MumbaiPolice in the said case. The interception of the telephonenumber of Mr. Vindoo Dara Singh revealed links to Mr.Gurunath Meiyappan, an alleged Team Principal of IPLteam, Chennai Super Kings, and the son in law of the BCCIPresident, Mr. N. Srinivasan, who was also the ManagingDirector of India Cements Limited, owner of IPL team,Chennai Super Kings. Subsequently, Mr. GurunathMeiyappan was summoned by the Mumbai Police underSection 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code(hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) in the said case andafter detailed interrogation and verification of prima facieevidence against him, placed him under arrest on25.05.2013.During the investigation of FIR No. 20/2013 by the DelhiPolice, Mr. Raj Kundra, one of the owners of the Jaipur IPL

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 20144Cricket Private Limited, the franchisee who owns the IPLteam, Rajasthan Royals, was summoned and examined on05.06.2013. It was alleged by the Delhi Police that Mr. RajKundra had confessed to betting in some of the matches ofIPL Season 6.Subsequent to the aforesaid developments, i.e. arrest ofMr. Gurunath Meiyappan on alleged acts of betting by theMumbai Police in CR No. 61/2013 and disclosures madeby the Delhi Police to the media of the alleged involvementof Mr. Raj Kundra in betting activities, the BCCI, appointeda two Judges Commission comprising of Justice T.Jayaram Chouta (Retd) and Justice R. Balasubramanian(Retd.) on 29.05.2013 to investigate into the allegationsagainst Mr. Raj Kundra, Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited,Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and India Cements Limitedunder Clause 3.1. of Section 6 of the IPL Operational Rules2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Operational Rules) foralleged acts of betting committed by Mr. Raj Kundra asowner of Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited, the franchiseefor IPL team, Rajasthan Royals and Mr. GurunathMeiyappan as Team Principal of IPL team, Chennai SuperKings.The two-Judges Commission on 26.07.2013 submitted itsReport stating that the BCCI could not make out a caseagainst the aforesaid persons and recorded a finding thatthe Respondents thereto had not committed any offencenor could the Respondents be found guilty of violating

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 20145either the Operational Rules or any other Regulation of theIPL.Pending the inquiry led by the two Judges Commission, aPIL Petition No. 55 of 2013 titled ‘Cricket Association ofBihar Vs BCCI amongst others’ came to be filed in theHon’ble High Court of Bombay challenging the constitutionof the two Judges Commission appointed by the BCCI toprobe into the allegations of betting and spot fixing in IPLby Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, son in law of Mr. N.Srinivasan and Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited.The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, vide its Judgement dated30.07.2013 held the constitution of the Commission to beultra vires to the BCCI regulations and the OperationalRules. The Hon’ble High Court however, declined theprayer made by the Cricket Association of Bihar, thePetitioner, to grant a further relief sought, to constitute apanel of retired Judges to conduct an enquiry against Mr.Gurunath Meiyappan, owners of Chennai Super Kings andJaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited with regard to theiralleged involvement in spot fixing and betting and left it tothe discretion of BCCI to constitute a fresh probecommission under Section 6 of the Operational Rules, if itdeemed fit.Against the Judgement dated 30.07.2013 of the Hon’bleHigh Court of Bombay in PIL Petition No. 55/2013, an SLPCivil No. 26633/2013 came to be preferred before theHon’ble Supreme Court of India.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 20146The Hon’ble Supreme Court, without casting aspersions onthe two Judges Commission and on consideration of thefact that the Mumbai Police had submitted its charge sheetagainst Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, constituted the presentthree member Probe Committee (hereinafter referred to asthe Committee) headed by Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal,retired Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt vide its Order dated 08.10.2013 with a view toconduct an independent probe into the allegations whichwere the subject matter of PIL Petition No. 55/2013.The other members of the Committee comprised of:1. Mr. L. Nageswar Rao, Senior Advocate and AdditionalSolicitor General of India as Member;2. Mr. Nilay Dutta, Senior Advocate as Member.TERMS OF REFERENCEThe terms of reference of the Committee for investigationas directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were as follows:1. The allegations of betting and spot fixing in the IPLmatches against Gurunath Meiyappan, allegedly theTeam Principal of Chennai Super Kings, 3 rdRespondent (India Cements Limited), and the playersand the 4 th Respondent (Jaipur IPL Cricket privateLimited) / team owner of IPL franchisee RajasthanRoyals.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201472. The allegations against Gurunath Meiyappan, therespondent 3 and 4 with regard to their involvementin spot fixing and betting.PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEEThe Committee commenced its inquiry on 11.10.2013. TheCommittee decided to avail the services of Mr. VidushpatSinghania, Advocate, as the Secretary to the Committee.The Committee also engaged Ms. Abantee Dutta, Advocateand Mr. Gautam Bharadwaj, Advocate to assist theCommittee as Research Associates.By a Press Note dated 24.10.2013, the Committee appealedto and invited members of the public to come forth withany such information with regard to the aforesaid terms ofreference. The Press Note was published and broadcastedwidely in print and electronic media. The responses to thisappeal were duly considered by the Committee.The Committee, between 05.11.2013 to 08.02.2013,conducted wide-scale interactions with members of thecricket fraternity and supporters of the game, at differentvenues across India. The interactions spanned a crosssection of people associated with cricket ranging fromformer and present International Indian cricketers,selectors, cricket administrators, commentators,journalists, anti-corruption officials, franchise owners andmanagement as well as law enforcement agencies.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 20148The interactions with the various persons in course of theCommittee deliberations were tape recorded. It was madeknown to the interactors that such tape recordings wouldbe stopped if they felt uncomfortable. There wereoccasions, when under the instructions of the interactors,the tape recordings were stopped in its entirety or partially.The committee documented the summary of theseinteractions, which were not required to be signed by theinteractors.The conclusions arrived at are placed herein below in threechapters. Chapter I deal with the terms of reference asdirected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while constitutingthe committee. Chapter II deals with certain serious issueswhich have emanated during the course of thedeliberations of the Committee. These issues may notstrictly have been part of the terms of reference. However,they reflect disturbing linkages between players/administrators/ politicians and declared terrorists and theunderworld. The issues also throw light for the need of athorough professional approach on the part of theinvestigative agencies to these disturbing linkages whichevidently indicate a serious threat to national security.Chapter III are certain suggestions/ recommendationswhich are consequent to the findings in Chapter I and II.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014CHAPTER IANSWERS TO THE REFERENCES9The terms of reference contain 2 questions. However, boththe questions complement each other and substantiallyoverlap. There would therefore be a consolidated answer toboth the parts of reference. For convenience, the referencewould be discussed under the following heads:I. The position of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan in IPLteam, Chennai Super Kings;II.The allegations of betting in the IPL matches againstMr. Gurunath Meiyappan;III. Allegation of spot fixing against Mr. GurunathMeiyappan;IV. The allegation of betting and spot fixing in the IPLmatches against the players of IPL team, RajasthanRoyals;V. The allegation of betting against Mr. Raj Kundra,owner of Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited,franchisee of the IPL team Rajasthan Royals.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201410I. POSITION OF MR. GURUNATH MEIYAPPAN IN IPLTEAM CHENNAI SUPER KINGSAt the outset, it is important to underscore a few relevantprovisions of the Operational Rules in order to accuratelyassess the evidence that has been placed before thisCommittee.‣ Under Para 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of the OperationalRules, the provisions of the IPL Code of Conduct forPlayers and Team Officials, the BCCI AntiCorruption Code for Participants, the BCCI MinimumStandards for PMOA at Matches as well as theOperational Rules in toto shall bind any personsubject to the Operational Rules.‣ Under Para 2.14 of the Operational Rules, eachperson subject to the Operational Rules shall notduring a match or otherwise act or omit to act inany way which would or might reasonable beanticipated to have an adverse effect on the imageand/or reputation of such person, any team, anyplayer, any team official, the BCCI, the Leagueand/or the Game or which would otherwise bringany of the foregoing into disrepute.‣ Under Para 4.1.1 of the Operational Rules, eachfranchisee shall ensure that each of its teamofficials comply with the regulations including

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201411without limitation the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code forParticipants.‣ Under the same Para 4.1.1, all of those personswho are accredited as representing the franchisee,whether accredited for the league by BCCI eithercentrally or locally, shall be deemed to be a teamofficial for the purpose of the regulations.‣ Team official has been further defined as includinginteralia those persons who are accredited inconnection with the league.‣ Under Para 6.4.2 of the Operational Rules, theDisciplinary Procedure Commission constitutedunder Para 6.2.2 may through BCCI impose varioussanctions under the Operational Rules.‣ Under Para 6.4.4.2, the said Commission isauthorised interalia to suspend a player or otherpersons from playing or otherwise being involved inmatches for a specified period, suspend a team orfranchisee from the league, impose a financialpenalty payable to BCCI or any other personamongst others. The Commission is also authorisedto impose any other sanction not listed in Para 4.4.2that the Commission views as reasonable in theinterests of justice.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201412All franchisees in the IPL, have signed a FranchiseAgreement with the BCCI. Under clause 11.3, the BCCImay terminate any Franchise Agreement with immediateeffect by written notice if interalia the franchisee, anyfranchisee group company and / or any Owner acts in anyway which has a material adverse effect upon thereputation or standing of the league, IPL, BCCI, thefranchisee, the team or any other team in the leagueand/or the game of cricket.It has been urged before the Committee that Mr. GurunathMeiyappan was in fact, the owner of IPL team, ChennaiSuper Kings, within the meaning of the FranchiseAgreement. If the offence of betting is proved against Mr.Gurunath Meiyappan, such action would definitely have amaterial adverse effect on the reputation or standing of theleague. An attempt has been made to project Mr. GurunathMeiyappan, as the owner of the franchisee of IPL Team,Chennai Super Kings, because in such event it would beopen to BCCI to terminate the agreement with thefranchisee with immediate effect by a written notice andthis would not entail the procedure envisaged under Para 6of the Operational Rules. The definition under clause 1.1 ofthe Franchise Agreement, states that an owner shall mean,any person who is the ultimate controller of the franchisee.Various depositions would indicate that Mr. GurunathMeiyappan was perceived as the “face” of IPL team,Chennai Super Kings. The perception arises out of thefacts that he was found to have been sitting in the “owners

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201413dug out” in the stadium, that he was representing theowner in various meeting of the IPL franchisee and emailsin connection with such meetings of franchisee were sentto him by name on behalf of the franchisee, that heparticipated in the auction and raised the banner thereinon behalf of IPL team, Chennai Super Kings, that histwitter account described him as the Team Principal of IPLteam, Chennai Super Kings. It was also brought on recordthat the Mumbai police seized visiting cards of Mr.Gurunath Meiyappan which indicated that he was theTeam Principal of IPL team, Chennai Super Kings.Per contra, it has also been deposed before the Committeethat Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan is not a shareholder of IndiaCements Limited, the franchisee which owns IPL team,Chennai Super Kings. He did not have any official positionin India Cements Limited. He had no authority to decide onselection of players in the team auctions, he had noauthority to decide team strategy nor did he attend anyteam meeting. He had no jurisdiction to decide on thePlaying XI nor any individual players place in the batting orthe bowling order nor was he privy to any suchinformation.The Committee was apprised that in the years 2008, 2009and 2010, his accreditation card showed him as “owner”.However, from 2011 to 2013, he is not listed in theaccreditation card as “owner” but as “Management Blue”.The committee was apprised on behalf of the IPLauthorities as well as other interactors, that in the initial

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201414years of IPL, there was only one set of accreditation cardsand it was only subsequently that a distinction was beingmade between owners and other managementrepresentatives.It has been brought on record that the obligations /rightsand liabilities of the franchisee in IPL have been stipulatedin their respective Franchise Agreements. In terms of thesaid agreement, India Cements Limited is the franchiseeand owns the IPL team, Chennai Super Kings. Clause 1.1of the agreement defines “owner”, which mean any personwho is the ultimate controller of the franchisee. It isundisputed that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan is not ashareholder of the franchisee i.e. India Cements Limitednor does he have any official position in the said Company.Under the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that hehad any control over the franchisee i.e. the India CementsLimited and therefore Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan cannot bedeemed to be “the owner” within the meaning of Clause11.3 of the franchisee agreement.However, the fact that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan is not theowner of the franchisee will not make any substantialdifference under the Operational Rules as to the liability ofIPL team, Chennai Super Kings is concerned vis a vis Mr.Gurunath Meiyappan. In view of his accreditation as“Management Blue” under the IPL Accreditation Rules, it isabsolutely incontrovertible that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappanwas in fact a “Team official” of the IPL team, ChennaiSuper Kings within the meaning of the Operational Rules.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201415As already stated above, under Para 6.1.1.2, the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants bind any person subjectto the Operational Rules. Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan wasaccredited on behalf of IPL team, Chennai Super Kingswith a “Management Blue” pass and therefore he was a“Team official” within the meaning of the definition of“Team official” under Para 1.1 of the Operational Rules. Assuch, though under the definition of participant in Anti-Corruption Code for Participants, Mr. GurunathMeiyappan was not a player, player support personnel,umpire, match referee or umpire support personnel, hewould still be subject to the provisions of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code.Evidently, in the event of a finding that Mr. GurunathMeiyappan had transgressed the provisions of Article 2.2 ofthe BCCI Anti-Corruption Code, the franchisee wouldremain liable within the meaning of the Operational Rulesfor its obligations under Para 4.1.1 of the OperationalRules.II.ALLEGATIONS OF BETTING, MISUSE OF INSIDEINFORMATION TRADING, AGAINST MR.GURUNATH MEIYAPPAN‣ Article 2.1.under the BCCI Anti-Corruption Codefor participants, defines an offence of corruptionwhich would include interalia fixing or contriving

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201416in any way or otherwise influencing improperlyor being a party in any way to fix or contrive inany way or otherwise influence improperly theresult, progress, conduct or any other aspect ofany match or event‣ Article 2.2.2 defines betting which would includeinteralia placing, accepting, laying or otherwiseentering into any bet with any other party inrelation to the result, progress, conduct or anyother aspect of any other match or event.‣ Article 2.2.3, defines the misuse of insideinformation which would include interalia, usingfor betting purposes any inside information oralso disclosing inside information to any personbefore or during any match or event where theparticipant might reasonably be expected toknow that disclosure of such information in suchcircumstances could be used in relation tobetting.The materials against Gurunath Meiyappan on allegationsof betting have been produced only by the Mumbai Policebefore the Committee. Others who have made allegations ofbetting against Gurunath Meiyappan have not producedany material in support thereof and have entirely relied onmedia reports.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201417The Mumbai Police has charged Mr. Gurunath Meiyappanon allegations of betting in IPL matches as well as forallegedly passing inside information to bookies. It is theallegation of Mumbai Police that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappanwas in contact with one Mr. Vindoo Dara Singh throughwhom he placed bets in connection with IPL matches. Insupport of this allegation, certain phone calls which weretaped under the authority of the competent authority havebeen cited. The transcripts of such interception, primafacie, reveal that discussions on betting took place andinstructions as to how bets could be placed were alsogiven. The transcribed transcripts indicate that the nameGuru cropped up in the conversations. The allegations arethat the taped phone calls belong to Mr. GurunathMeiyappan and instructions were given by him for placingof bets. The only materials against Mr. GurunathMeiyappan are the tapes. Unfortunately, the Mumbai Policedid not place any scientific evidence before the Committeethat the voice in the tape infact was that of Mr. GurunathMeiyappan. According to the Mumbai Police, the resultsfrom the forensics were still awaited. Moreover, thoughaccount books were seized from bookies, no money trailfrom Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan was proved before theCommittee by the Mumbai Police.Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan exercised his constitutionalrights to remain silent in the present proceedings in view ofthe said criminal proceedings. No indication was given bythe Committee to Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan that any

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201418adverse inference would be drawn in view of his silence.Moreover, any finding as to Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan’sculpability in betting by this Committee without all thematerials being placed before it might prejudice either theprosecution or the defence in the criminal proceedings. Itwould therefore not be fair on the part of this Committee tocome to a conclusive finding that the voice in the tape is infact that of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan.It is however reasonable to hold that in the event ofthe tapes being found to be genuine, un-tampered andreliable and in the event that the voice in the tape isproved to be that of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, therecan be no iota of doubt that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappanwas indulging in betting in IPL matches. The conclusionawaits a final determination in the criminal proceedingswhere evidently the raw footage and the tapes would beproved scientifically.It is in the interest of all concernedthat the Hon’ble Supreme Court directs an expeditious trialon a day to day basis in the said criminal proceedings.In Rajan Dwivedi Vs CBI cited in (2012) 8 SCC 495, theHon’ble Supreme Court has stated in para 20:“The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoidoppression and prevent delay by imposing on a courtand the prosecution an obligation to proceed with thetrail with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee servesa threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accusedagainst oppressive pre-trial imprisonment; secondly,

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201419it relieves the accused of the anxiety and publicsuspicion due to unresolved criminal charges andlastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will belost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thusimparting the ability of the accused to defend him orherself. Stated another way, the purpose of both thecriminal procedure rules governing speedy trials andthe constitutional provisions, in particular, Article 21,is to relieve an accused of the anxiety associatedwith a suspended prosecution and providereasonably prompt administration of justice.”As regards the allegation of passing of insiderinformation, the Mumbai Police makes out thefollowing case.(i)On 12.05.2013, before match of IPL teams, KolkataKnight Riders and Royal Challengers Bangalore,there was a call between Gurunath Meiyappan andVindoo Dara Singh;(ii) On 12.05.2013, in the match between IPL teams,Rajasthan Royals and Chennai Super Kings, beforethe start of the match, Vindoo Dara Singh informedone Sanjay Jaipur that Chennai Super Kings wasGurunath Meiyappan’s favourite.(iii) On 12.05.2013, in the same match, 58 minutes fromthe start of the match, Gurunath Meiyappan revealedto Vindoo Dara Singh that the IPL team, ChennaiSuper Kings would make about 130-140 runs andIPL team, Chennai Super Kings ended up making141 runs.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201420(iv) At 1 hour 9 minutes into the match on the same day,Gurunath Meiyappan told Vindoo Dara Singh “ RR iswinning pucca”(v) On 13.05.2013, at 10:47, Gurunath Meiyappan toldVindoo Dara Singh that wicket at Ranchi was slowerand that there was rain/cyclone at Chennai on thatday.(vi) On 14.05.2013, in the morning of the match betweenIPL teams, Chennai Super Kings and DelhiDaredevils, Gurunath Meiyappan told Vindoo DaraSingh that there was an issue with the StateGovernment over the withdrawal of the Statecertificate for the stability of the stadium.(vii) On the same day, Gurunath Meiyappan told VindooDara Singh at 7:26 PM, that he saw the team in thehotel and Chennai Super Kings will win 100 %.(viii) On the same day, at 7:53PM, Gurunath Meiyappeninformed Vindoo Dara Singh “no other ….change….iam giving you….weak link in bowling.”On the basis of these facts, it is the case of the Mumbaipolice that accused Gurunath Meiyappan was providinginside information to Vindoo Dara Singh to aid betting.The term “inside information” would imply any suchinformation on the game that is not in the public domainand that which would facilitate betting on the game. Itwould include informations pertaining to team strategies,team composition, physical fitness and temperamentalstatus of the players, pitch and ground conditions, etc.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201421Evidently, this list is not exhaustive and would vary fromcase to case.In the interaction with the Committee, it was admitted bythe Mumbai Police that informations pertaining to IPLteams, Kolkata Knight Riders Vs Royal ChallengersBangalore, would not be an “inside information” in so faras Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan is concerned. Infact, thetranscript pertaining to 12.05.2013 indicates that Mr.Gurunath Meiyappan was telling Mr. Vindoo Dara Singhthat they would stay quietly and do nothing. It is difficultto appreciate how in such circumstances the material of12.05.2013 would amount to passing off insideinformation. However, that would again await a finaldetermination by the criminal court.As regards the match on 12.05.2013 between IPL teams,Rajasthan Royals and Chennai Super Kings, thetranscripts indicate that at the start of the match Mr.Gurunath Meiyappan was of the opinion that IPL team,Chennai Super Kings, would win the match. As the matchprogressed, it is evident from the tape that when Mr. M.S.Dhoni and Mr. Suresh Raina fell at the 12 th over, Mr.Gurunath Meiyappan was of the opinion that IPL team,Chennai Super Kings, would make about 130- 140 runs.By that time, Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan had already placedhigh bets on IPL team, Chennai Super Kings andanticipating huge loss, he started placing cover bets on IPLteam, Rajasthan Royals. The transcripts would reveal thatthe odds by then however were being continuously lowered

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201422on IPL team, Rajasthan Royals and so in spite of placinghuge bets of Rs 1.40 crores on IPL team, Rajasthan Royals,Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan could not make up his previousloss on bets on IPL team, Chennai Super Kings andultimately ended the day at a loss of about Rs 60 lacs. Thepattern of betting and the calls reveal a constantdiscussion between Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr.Vindoo Dara Singh as regards the bets to be placed and thetenor of the transcript reveal that the bets on IPL team,Rajasthan Royals, were being made when panic buttonswere being pressed. The discussions are more indicative ofcalculations made by a punter with a bookie, rather thanany indication of inside information of the match beingpassed by Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan. This would also,however, be subject to all evidence being led and the finaldetermination being made in the criminal proceedings.The issue of stability certificate for the stadium was amatter of litigation in various superior courts and was thesubject of extensive coverage in all newspapers coveringIPL. The same was a part of common sporting knowledgeand was discussed by everyone publicly and as such couldnot have been by any means an issue of inside information.As regards, the call at 7:26 PM, the transcript reveals aforecast that IPL team, Chennai Super Kings, would win100 %. In course of our deliberations, it has been theunanimous opinion of virtually all experts that it isimpossible to fix the winning of the game while it ispossible to fix a match by deciding to lose a match. Mr.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201423Gurunath Meiyappan’s assurance therefore that IPL team,Chennai Super Kings, would win can only be his optimismand by no means be treated as an inside information.The call at 7:53 PM as regards no change in the team is astatement of fact which was already in public knowledge,since in an IPL match the toss takes place half an hourprior to start of the match when the lists of the teams(playing XI) are officially exchanged and the same isdisclosed in the electronic media. This was explainedcategorically by Mr. Harsha Bhogle. The match between IPLteams, Chennai Super Kings and Delhi Dare Devils, wasscheduled to start at 8:00 PM and as such at 7:53 PM, thesaid information could not have been an insideinformation. This was further agreed to by the MumbaiPolice officials when being questioned by the Committee.As deposed by Mr. M.S. Dhoni, in his interaction with theCommittee, it was well known that the strength of IPLteam, Chennai Super Kings, was in their batting line upand there was a weak link in their bowling strength.Evidently, any student of the game would be very wellaware that there was a weak link in the IPL team, ChennaiSuper Kings bowling. People who put in their money inbets and bookies and kingpins in this trade would beardent observers of the game. There would be nothing newto state that there is a weak link in IPL team, ChennaiSuper Kings bowling. This matter, again however, would bedependent on the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201424From the discussions above, it would be difficult to offhandconclude that any inside information was passedon by Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan. The finaldetermination of this question will rest on theevidence led in the criminal trial and findings arrivedat therein.In the event of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, being found to beindulging in offences of betting as well as misuse of insideinformation, he would evidently suffer consequences underthe provisions of the Operational Rules stated above. Asalready stated under Para 4.1.1, it was the burden of IndiaCements Limited, franchisee of IPL team, Chennai SuperKings, to have ensured that each of its team officialscomply with the operational regulations including withoutlimitation the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants.The liability of India Cements Limited would flow from Para4.1.1.1 of the Operational Rules, as any finding against Mr.Gurunath Meiyappan as accredited agent of the franchiseIndian Cements Limited, owner of the IPL team, ChennaiSuper Kings, under the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code forParticipants would imply that India Cements Limited hadfailed to comply with its obligation under Para 4.1.1.1. Afinding against Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan wouldtherefore necessarily entail a finding on the failure ofIndia Cements Limited in carrying out its saidobligations under Para 4 and necessary sanctions underPara 6 of the Operational Rules, against the franchisee

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201425will have to be considered within the provisions of Para6.4.2 as may be reasonable in the interest of justice.Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan is presently under suspension bythe BCCI till a final decision is arrived at, as regards theallegations made against him. The standard of proof in acriminal proceeding is “beyond all reasonable doubt”.However, under Para 6.3.19 of the Operational Rules, thestandard of proof in respect of all complaints broughtunder the Operational Rules shall be whether aCommission is “comfortably satisfied” bearing in mind theseriousness of the allegation that is made. This standard ofproof shall be determined on a sliding scale from, at aminimum, a mere balance of probability for the leastserious offences, upto proof beyond a reasonable doubt forthe more serious offences. Moreover, the Commissionwould not be bound by judicial rules governing theadmissibility of evidence as in a criminal proceeding andfacts relating to an offence committed under theregulations may be established by any reliable meansincluding admissions.Evidently therefore, an acquittal in the criminalproceedings ipso facto will not bar a subsequent enquiryeither by the BCCI under the Operational Rules, even ifcriminal proceedings fail. Moreover, it is not necessary forthe BCCI to await the final decision in the criminalproceedings, since as already pointed out, the procedure ina Disciplinary enquiry under the Operational Rules and thestandard of proof in such proceedings are substantially

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201426different from that of a criminal proceeding. In similarcircumstances, the BCCI had proceeded against theplayers of IPL team, Rajasthan Royals during the pendencyof the criminal proceedings. The BCCI should act in asimilar manner in matters pertaining to allegations ofbetting and passing on inside information againstGurunath Meiyappan and need not await theconclusion of the criminal trial in CR No. 61/2013.III. ALLEGATIONS OF SPOT FIXING AGAINSTGURUNATH MEIYAPPANThe terms of reference of the Committee as directed by theHon’ble Supreme Court include spot fixing in IPL matchesby Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan. No allegation of spot fixingwas made by anyone against Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan orIPL team, Chennai Super Kings.However, in course of deliberations, a serious allegationpertaining to match fixing in the match between IPL teams,Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals on 12.05.2013played at Jaipur was urged before the Committee.“Match fixing” refers to fixing the final result of the gamewhile “spot fixing” would involve fixing of certain eventswithin a match which can be gambled upon, but whichmay or may not prove decisive in determining the finalresult of the game.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201427In view of the seriousness of the allegation made, asregards match fixing, it is deemed necessary to deal withthis allegation also.The charge sheet filed by the Mumbai Police alleges that on12.05.2013 in course of the aforesaid match, Mr.Gurunath Meiyappan informed Mr. Vindoo Dara Singh thatIPL team, Chennai Super Kings, would make about 130-140 runs and that IPL team, Chennai Super Kings, endedup making 141 runs. This allegation has been widelypublished in the media and based on such reports; anumber of interactors raised this issue before thecommittee. Md. Abdi, a sports administrator fromRajasthan, who also acted as the constituted attorney ofMr. Lalit Modi, a former Chairman of the IPL GoverningCouncil, developed this issue further and placed ananalysis of the match in support of his contention that thematch was fixed. The analysis indicated that by02.05.2013, the IPL team, Chennai Super Kings, hadalready qualified. It was reiterated that IPL team, ChennaiSuper Kings, with its strong batting line up did not score asingle six in the match while IPL team, Rajasthan Royals,in its innings, had scored 9 sixes and that there was nosurge in the end of the innings of IPL team, Chennai SuperKings, even though wickets were in hand. It was allegedthat the bowlers of IPL team, Chennai Super Kings, did notbowl to the field set, and that the field was not properly setkeeping in mind the pace of the game. It was allegedfurther that the batsmen threw their wickets. It was urged

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201428that IPL team, Chennai Super Kings, had been consistentlycoming up with huge scores and there was no explanationas to why IPL team, Chennai Super Kings came up with abelow par score in the match.A dispassionate analysis of the match in question wouldreveal that at the start of the 12 th over, IPL team, ChennaiSuper Kings, was at a healthy score of around 85 for theloss of 1 wicket at a run rate of around 7.7 runs per over.It has been the consistent view of the interactingindependent players including Mr. Rahul Dravid and Mr.Anil Kumble that it is the rule of the thumb that the scoreat the end of 12 th over gets doubled at the end of 20 th over.It can be safely assumed therefore that the score at the endof 11 th over would have been doubled in normal course ofevents. However, both Mr. Suresh Raina and Mr. M.S.Dhoni fell within a span of one over in the 12 th over. Thisresulted in a slowing down in the scoring of runs and ithas been explained to the committee by the expert playersthat this is quite possible. Immediately at the start of the17 th over, Mr. Murali Vijay was out and during the periodfrom 13 th to 17 th over, the rate of scores slumped to about7 runs per over. From the 17 th to the 20 th over, the run rateper over continued at 7 runs per over.It is evident that the sudden fall of wickets of Mr. M.S.Dhoni and Mr. Suresh Raina were the prime reasons forslowing down of the run rate. It was therefore feltnecessary to examine the dismissals of Mr. M.S. Dhoni andMr. Suresh Raina and the matter was specifically

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201429discussed with Mr. Anil Kumble and Mr. Rahul Dravid. Mr.Anil Kumble based on an analysis of the video footage ofthe dismissals did not find anything suspicious in thedismissals and infact acknowledged the adroit role of Mr.Rahul Dravid in getting Mr. M.S. Dhoni trapped by a catchin the slips. Mr. Rahul Dravid, who was the captain of theIPL team, Rajasthan Royals in answer to specific queriesalso agreed that there was nothing suspicious about thefall of the two wickets and pointed out that it is alwaysnecessary to bring in a slip fielder during the openingstages of Mr. M.S. Dhoni’s innings. This strategyapparently succeeded on that particular day.As noted above, Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, in fact, lost incourse of the day’s betting, if the tapes are to be believed.He was originally betting on the IPL team, Chennai SuperKings, to win but when Mr. M.S. Dhoni and Mr. SureshRaina fell in the 12 th over, he started to cover up his betsby betting on IPL team, Rajasthan Royals. It was only inthe 13 th over, that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan informed Mr.Vindoo Dara Singh that the team would definitely scorebetween 130 to 140 runs.Was this a calculation by Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, a mereforecast? Or, was it his prior knowledge of a fixed match?The interactors have uniformly taken up a position thatwithout the involvement of atleast a couple of importantplayers and more particularly the captain of the team, itwould be highly improbable to fix a particular match. Md.Abdi in his FIR No. 269/2013 dated 01.11.2013, P. S.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201430Jyotinagar under Section 120B/420 IPC (hereinafterreferred to as FIR No. 269/2013) has alleged interalia thatthe match was fixed with the assistance of the players ofthe IPL team, Chennai Super Kings, who were wilfully notplaying as per their capacity and that they played suicidalshots to lose their wickets in a pitch which was good forbatting.On notice to Jaipur Police, officers appeared before theCommittee. From the materials produced, it was evidentthat no worthwhile investigation has been done as regardsthis match in the pending case in FIR No. 269/2013.It is in the record of the Committee, through the depositionof Mr. G. Sampath Kumar, I.P.S, working as theSuperintendent of Police, Railways Tiruchirappalli, TamilNadu, that the Q branch CID of the Chennai Police whichlooks after internal security, in course of its investigationinto a fake passport racket, came across materials whichindicated large scale betting in IPL matches. As per Mr. G.Sampath Kumar, one Mr. Utham Jain @ Kitty had beeninterrogated by Q branch in his presence and the said Kittyhad disclosed, in course of his interrogation on23.05.2013, that pursuant to a plan to fix the matchbetween IPL teams, Chennai Super Kings and RajasthanRoyals, scheduled on 12.05.2013, he was informed by oneMr. Vikram Agarwal on 27.04.2013 at a dinner party that adeal had been worked out. He was also informed the sameday by Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan that one senior memberin the IPL team, Chennai Super Kings, had agreed to play

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201431as per plan and the team will score 140 runs. This planwas communicated to one Sanjay in Jaipur over phone byMr. Vikram Agarwal in presence of Kitty. The Committeewas informed by the said police officer that all the officerswho were in knowledge of the disclosures by Kitty weretransferred out and the matter was in the meantimereferred to CBCID, Chennai police. Curiously, thisinterrogation report of Kitty was not available in therecords of CBCID when they produced the case file ofCBCID C. No. 1/2013 before the Committee. SrimatiBhuvaneswari, Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID,admitted that there was another file in the Q branchpertaining to theinvestigation of fake passport case againstMd. Jaffar alias Jaffarullah in connection with Q branchCase No. 1/2013. The Committee was assured that thisparticular file would be produced by the Q branch at 4 PMon 25.01.2013.Surprisingly, none appeared before theCommittee and no record was produced before theCommittee as assured. There has been absolutely noresponse/communication from the Q branch thereafter.The Committee is not in a position therefore to ascertainwhether the interrogation report of Kitty as stated by Mr.G. Sampath Kumar in fact exists.Under the circumstances, much as one would have liked toclose the matter on the basis of the depositions of Mr. AnilKumble and Mr. Rahul Dravid, in view of the curiousconduct of the Q branch CID (Internal Security), and theCBCID Chennai Police as well as the sudden change in the

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201432investigating machinery in this particular case under theChennai Police and also in view of the records of theJyotinagar Police Station, Jaipur in FIR No.269/2013,further investigation is necessary. A totally independentinvestigating agency may be directed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court to investigate the allegations with fullpowers under the statutory laws including the Code ofCriminal Procedure Code, which in the nature of thepresent probe was not available to the presentCommittee.IV.ALLEGATION OF BETTING AND SPOT FIXING INTHE IPL MATCHES AGAINST THE PLAYERS OFRAJASTHAN ROYALSAs indicated above, on the intervening night of15/16.05.2013, a team of the Delhi Police arrested fourplayers of Rajasthan Royals for offences in connection withspot fixing in IPL matches. Charge sheet has been filedagainst the players S. Sreesanth, Ankeet Chavan, AjithChandela and Amit Kumar Singh. Presently, trial inconnection with the said case is pending before theLearned MCOCA Special Court, New Delhi.The present Committee interacted extensively with theDelhi Police and the former Commissioner of Police, Mr.Neeraj Kumar. The Committee also met three of the playersnamely S. Sreesanth along with his counsel, Mr. AnkeetChavan and Mr. Ajith Chandela. All three players exercised

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201433their constitutional right to remain silent in the presentproceedings in view of the said criminal proceedings. Noindication was given to them that any adverse inferencewould be drawn in view of their silence.As indicated by the Delhi Police and as is evident from therecords of the case, the allegations against the players areas follows:1. S. Sreesanth(a) That S. Sreesanth was persuaded by his close aideaccused P. Jiju Janardhanan to participate in spotfixing in lieu of Rs. 60 lakhs (cash) for giving 14+runs on 09.05.2013 in the match between Kings XIPunjab and Rajasthan Royals.(b) It was pre decided that S. Sreesanth will tuck in hishand towel, often used by cricketers, in his trousers,as a signal before the start of the “fixed” over. Alsohe was asked to take some time by doing extendedstretching exercises before starting his over.(c) Footage from the match played on 09.05.2013between Kings XI Punjab and Rajasthan Royalsshow that S. Sreesanth could give only 13 runs inthe second (fixed) over after giving the pre decidedsignal, despite his best efforts to give more than 14runs.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201434(d) There are intercepted voice calls to show that thefixers appreciated the efforts of S. Sreesanth despitethe fact that he gave one run less and thereforedecided not to ask for refund of the advance of Rs.10 Lakhs.(e) In the first week of May 2013, accused P. JijuJanardhanan received 10 Lakhs in cash, on behalfof S. Sreesanth as an illegal consideration for spotfixing from accused Chandresh Patel @ Chand. Withthis cash, S. Sreesanth purchased 2 mobiles fromJaipur and further gave them to his two girlfriendsnamely Sakshi Jhala and Deepika both resident ofJaipur, which were subsequently recovered by DelhiPolice from them at his instance. Further, there areintercepted call records between S. Sreesanth andaccused P. Jiju Janardhanan, where the amount ofRs. 10 Lakhs received as advance for spot fixinghasbeen discussed out of which Rs 3 Lakhs went toaccused P. Jiju Janardhanan and Rs. 7 Lakhs to S.Sreesanth. The intercepted calls also shownegotiation by accused P. Jiju Janardhnan on S.Sreesanth’s behalf for fixing in future matches withbookies namely Manan and Chand.(f) There is also an intercepted voice call betweenaccused Chandresh Patel @ Chand and a bookie,which shows that accused/fixer Chandresh Patel @Chand was having full control over accused Ajith

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201435Chandela and S. Sreesanth. This call wasintercepted at 1335 hrs before the match playedbetween Rajasthan Royals and Chennai SuperKings played on 12.05.2013 at Jaipur from 1600hours.(g) S. Sreesanth along with accused P. JijuJanardhanan had also spent about Rs. 1.93 Lakhsin cash for purchasing clothes at Diesel Store, Juhu,Mumbai. The remaining cash was subsequentlyrecovered from accused Abhishek Shukla, an aide ofS. Sreesanth, who had removed the cash from thehotel room of P. Jiju Janardhanan.2. Ankeet Chavan(a) Ankeet Chavan was found involved in spot/sessionfixing on 15.05.2013 at Mumbai during a matchbetween Mumbai Indians and Rajasthan Royals inlieu of Rs. 60 Lakhs in cash.(b) He had met bookie/accused Jitendra Kumar Jain @Jeetu Tharad through accused Chandresh Patel@Chand in Mumbai to join in the conspiracy for spotfixing in lieu of heavy consideration.(c) In the month of March 2013, he had met bookies/accused namely Ajith Chandela, Ashwani Aggarwal@ Tinku Mandi and Kiran Dhole @ Munna in Delhinear Hotel Ashoka, Delhi. Records of Hotel Ashoka,

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201436Delhi confirm that Ankeet Chavan had stayed in thehotel with his real brother Nihar Anil Chavan on10.03.2013. Further, the call details of mobilenumbers of accused Ankeet Chavan and bookiesnamely Ajith Chandela, Ashwani Aggarwal @ TinkuMandi and Kiran Dhole @ Munna and others showthat they had met them near Hotel Ashoka, Delhi.(d) Intercepted voice calls among Ankeet Chavan andAjith Chandela and bookies Chandresh Patel andothers clearly show that he had agreed toparticipate in spot fixing in lieu of Rs. 60 Lakhs to bepaid in cash. Further, scrutiny of call details recordof numbers of Ankeet Chavan shows that he waslinked with bookies for spot/session fixing on15.05.2013.3. Ajith Chandela(a) There are call intercepts to establish thataccused/bookie Sunil Bhatia and Kiran Dhole werein touch with Ajith Chandela during IPL season 6through two other cricketer namely ManishGuddewar and Baburao Yadav.(b) Telephone intercepts reveal that Ajith Chandelawas also in touch with many bookies and wasreceiving huge amounts of money in lieu ofspot/session fixing.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201437(c) A watch make G Shock was found to have beenpurchased on 14.04.2013 by accused ChandreshPatel @ Chand from World Trade Park, Jaipur andgifted to accused Ajith Chandela as considerationfor spot fixing. Another watch, make Diesel, wasalso found to be purchased on 28.04.2013 byaccused Chandresh Patel and given to AjithChandela as advance for spot fixing. The paymentreceipts of these watches show that the paymentshad been made by Chandresh Patel, however, thesewatches were recovered from Ajith Chandela.(d) Bills/ records pertaining to Hotel JW Marriot, Jaipurof April/ May 2013 reveal that Ajith Chandela hadstayed there as a member of IPL team RajasthanRoyals along with accused Chandresh Patel andManan Bhatt to plan and execute spot fixing duringIPL season 6.(e) Disclosures have been made by Ajith Chandela thatapart from cash, he had received gifts asconsideration in 2012 from underworld conduit SunilBhatia from an eye shop at Khan Market, Delhi. Theshop during investigation has been identified as“Dayal Opticals” Shop H 1 Arcade, Khan Market,Delhi.(f) Disclosure made by Ajith Chandela that he hadreceived a cash amount of Rs. 12 Lakhs from Sunil

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201438Bhatia for spot fixing in IPL 5, which he was forcedto return due to failure to provide the requisite underperformance. Cheques of Rs. 4 lakhs were founddebited from his ICICI account in favour of SunilBhatia. Two more cheques of 4 lakhs each issued infavour of Sunil Bhatia by Ajith Chandela were foundto have been returned for insufficient funds.(g) There is corroborative evidence to suggest that AjithChandela met Tinku Mandi before IPL 2013 at HotelAshoka, with Kiran Dhole and demanded 25 Lakhs,which was paid to him through hawala transactionby Tinku Mandi for spot fixing. However,as he failedto give the pre-determined signal in the matchesbeing played on 05.05.2013 between RajasthanRoyals and Pune Warriors at Jaipur, he wasthreatened to return the money by Tinku Mandi,which he did through his friend Sukhram to one aideof Kiran Dhole and Sunil Bhatia namely Vivek atKhan Market.(h) There are various intercepted call which reveal thatAnkeet Chavan had been induced by Ajith Chandelafor a sum of Rs. 60 Lakhs to give away 14+ runs inapre-determined over in the match betweenRajasthan Royals and Mumbai Indians played on15.06.2013 at Wakhede Stadium, Mumbai,

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201439(i) There is evidence to suggest that Ajith Chandelahad received Rs. 15 lakhs for spot fixing in IPl 6from another fixer Deepak Kumar @ Deepu.(j) There are intercepted call details to suggest thatAjith Chandela was linked to another group of fixersto whom he was linked through one BhupenderNagar, whom he had met in various places in Delhiand in Jaipur along with other members of his cartelnamely Vikas Chaudhury @ Vicky, Nitin Jain @Susu and Vindo Sharma @ Monu.4. Amit Singh(a) That Amit Kumar Singh had introduced bookieManan U Bhatt with cricketer/accused AjithChandela with the motive of involving him in spotfixing.(b) The call details record of Amit Singh establishes hisclose links with other accused persons namelyChandresh Patel @ Chand, Jitendra Kumar Jain @Jeetu Tharad, P. Jiju Janardhanan and AjithChandela.(c) A statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made bycricketer Siddhartha Kumar Trivedi shows that AmitSingh was inducing cricketers with the help ofbookies for spot fixing.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201440(d) Amit Singh was found visiting places like Jaipur,Kolkata and Mumbai along with arrested bookiesand cricketers. The records of Hotel Royal Orchid,Jaipur shows that he had visited Jaipur and stayedthere along with other accused persons for spotfixing. Expenses of his stay during such visits wereborne by bookies. There are also air travel recordsand statement of one Hitesh @ Jimmy to indicatethat accused Manan U Bhatt and Chandresh Patel @Chand used to bear the costs of his air travels.(e) There are call intercepts between Amit Singh andAjith Chandela as well as P. Jiju Janardhana whichsuggest that accused Amit Singh was engagingthem for spot fixing.Mr. Ravi Sawani in his report stated that all the fourplayers have been guilty of the offences under the BCCIAnti-Corruption Code for Participants.The specific offences found to have been committed by theplayers are as follows:1. S. Sreesanth:Guilty of offences under Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3,2.2.3, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the BCCI Anti-CorruptionCode

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014412. Ankeet Chavan:Guilty of offences under Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3,2.2.3, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the BCCI Anti-CorruptionCode3. Ajith Chandela:Guilty of offence under Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3,2.1.4, 2.2.3, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code4. Amit Singh:Guilty of offences under Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4,2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of the BCCI Anti-Corruption CodeIt is on record that during the pendency of the criminalproceedings, the Disciplinary Committee of the BCCIcomprising of Mr. N. Srinivasan, Mr. Arun Jaitley and Mr.Niranjan Shah after due consideration of the reportsubmitted by Mr. Ravi Sawani, imposed the sanctions onthe players on 13.09.2013. Mr. S. Sreesanth and Mr.Ankeet Chavan were banned for life from all cricketingactivities of the BCCI and Mr. Amit Singh was banned for aperiod of 5 years. Disciplinary proceeding against Mr. AjithChandela is pending.It appears that the BCCI has already reached a definiteconclusion that the players involved were indulging inspot/session fixing in IPL matches. Punishments havealready been imposed on three players on the basis of suchfindings. There is no reason whatsoever to differ from theconclusions arrived at by the BCCI and therefore thedisciplinary proceedings against Mr. Ajith Chandela should

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201442be taken to their logical conclusion at this stage. Thecriminal culpability of the players would await a finaldetermination in the criminal proceedings. It is in theinterest of all concerned that the Hon’ble Supreme Courtdirects an expeditious trial in the said criminal proceedingsas discussed above.The BCCI has already held the aforesaid players of IPLteam, Rajasthan Royals, to be in violation of the Code ofConduct for Players. All the players were accredited to berepresenting the IPL team, Rajasthan Royals, under theOperational Rules. Under Clause 3.2.1 of the MinimumStandards for Players and Match Officials, they arerequired to display their players’ accreditation cards priorto entry into the said Players and Match Officials Area(PMOA). For purposes of the Operational Rules, the playersare persons who are accredited in connection with the IPLas contemplated by para 1.1 of Section 4 of the said Rules.Under this provision, it would be the liability of thefranchisee, Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited, to ensurethat each of its players complies without limitation theBCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants. The aforesaidfour players of IPL team, Rajasthan Royals, having beenfound guilty by the BCCI of violation of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants, it would beincumbent on the BCCI to initiate proceedings toascertain the culpability of the concerned franchisee inthis matter under the Operational Rules and to awardsuch sanctions as may be deemed appropriate.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201443V. ALLEGATION OF BETTING AGAINST MR. ANDMRS. RAJ KUNDRA, OWNERS OF JAIPUR IPLCRICKET PRIVATE LIMITEDDuring the investigation conducted by the Delhi Police inFIR 20/2013, the name of one Mr. Umesh Goenka surfacedas a person who had attempted to seek inside informationfrom a player of the IPL team, Rajasthan Royals. In hisstatement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Mr. UmeshGoenka disclosed that Mr. Raj Kundra was a close friend ofhis and also revealed that on various occasions when hehad visited Jaipur to witness cricket matches being playedthere, he had placed bets on behalf of Mr. Raj Kundrathrough local bookies, the prominent among them beingone Mr. Puneet Pahwa @ Kaku Jaipur. Mr. Umesh Goenkaalso revealed that once Ms. Shilpa Shetty, wife of Mr. RajKundra had also placed bets through him. Both Mr. RajKundra and Ms. Shilpa Shetty are stated to have financialinterests in the ownership pattern of the franchisee, JaipurIPL Cricket Private Limited, owner of IPL team, RajasthanRoyals.The confessional statement of Mr. Umesh Goenka,recorded by the Special Cell, Delhi Police on 04.06.2013 inFIR No. 20/2013 and his subsequent statement underSection 164 Cr.P.C. disclosed that he had been betting oncricket matches since the last 6 years. In the IPL matchesof Season 3, in the year 2010, some of the matches were

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201444played in Ahmedabad. Since Mr. Raj Kundra was a closefriend, he started going for the matches with Mr. RajKundra which were being played at Ahmedabad. In season4 in 2011, he went to watch matches in Jaipur. It was thenthat Mr. Raj Kundra started discussing betting with Mr.Umesh Goenka and took a keen interest in betting andenquired about betting rates of the ongoing matches. In IPLseason 5, in the year 2012, Raj Kundra informed Mr.Umesh Goenka that he intended to place huge bets. AsGoenka’s capacity to bet was limited, Mr. Raj Kundraintroduced him to one Mr. Puneet Pahwa @ Kaku ofJaipur, who according to Mr. Raj Kundra, was a trustedbookie and could be used for placing huge bettingamounts.It is also on record that one Mr. Siddhartha Trivedi, aplayer of IPL team, Rajasthan Royals in his statementunder Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 05.06.2013 by theLearned Magistrate reveals that he was introduced to Mr.Umesh Goenka by Mr. Raj Kundra, co- owner of RajasthanRoyals after match party of IPL. Mr. Umesh Goenkaaccording to him was a close friend and business partnerof Mr. Raj Kundra. He disclosed that Mr. Umesh Goenkavery frequently came to watch cricket matches at thestadium and was seen with Mr. Raj Kundra and Ms. ShilpaShetty most of the time. Mr. Raj Kundra had alsointroduced Mr. Umesh with other team players of IPL team,Rajasthan Royals, like Mr. Ajith Chandela and others. Hestated that one day Mr. Umesh Goenka called him asking

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201445for the information about the team composition but herefused and didn’t give any information because he was notsure for what the information was required. Later in manyoccasions he used to call Mr. Sidharth Trivedi asking aboutthe pitch conditions but he used to avoid him and didn’tgive any information. He stated further that there was oneoccasion when Mr. Umesh Goenka called him and statedthat Mr. Raj Kundra was aware of him asking all theseinformation from Mr. Sidharth Trivedi.In his statement recorded on 05.06.2013 before the DelhiPolice, Mr. Raj Kundra admits to placing friendly wager ofnot more than Rs. 2 Lakhs on some matches in IPL 6through his friend Mr. Umesh Goenka as well as of havingintroduced Mr. Umesh Goenka to one Kaku. However, hedenied having approached or asking Mr. Umesh Goenka toapproach these players to spot fix. This statement recordedunder Section 161 Cr.P.C. was subsequently sought to bewithdrawn by Mr. Raj Kundra by a letter, a copy of whichhas been placed before this Committee.The Delhi Police informed the Committee that based onsuch disclosures made by Mr. Umesh Goenka, Mr. RajKundra and Mr. Sidharth Trivedi they had forwarded thisinformation to Jaipur Police vide letter dated 25.06.2013for necessary action.The Delhi Police on 09.05.2013 registered FIR No. 20/2013u/s 120 B/420. Subsequently on 03.06.2013 after

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201446obtaining due approval from the competent authority,Section 3 and 4 of the MCOCA were added in the said case.The statement of Mr. Raj Kundra was recorded on05.06.2013 by the Delhi Police. This statement of Mr. RajKundra, which is on record before the Committee does notindicate that the statement was recorded under theprovisions of Section 18 of the MCOCA. It is surprising thatinspite of addition of MCOCA provisions, the Delhi Policedid not take any steps whatsoever to get the statementrecorded under Section 18 of the MCOCA nor was anystatement of Mr. Raj Kundra recorded under Section 164 ofthe Cr.P.C. It is on 25.06.2013, i.e. after 20 days, that theDelhi Police referred the matter to Jaipur Police forinvestigation. No action is thereafter found to have beentaken in connection with Mr. Raj Kundra, either by theDelhi Police or the Jaipur Police.There seems to have been an effort to cover up theinvolvement of Mr. Raj Kundra in betting. In terms of theregulations in force of the BCCI, even legal betting is notpermitted on the part of an owner of a franchisee. Nobenefit would accrue to Mr. Raj Kundra by an attempt toshow that bets were placed through legal betting methodsin other countries. There are materials on record whichjustify an appropriate investigation to ascertain theculpability of Mr. Raj Kundra and his wife Ms. ShilpaShetty in placing bets as owner of a franchisee in IPL.Any such culpability on the part of the Kundras wouldfasten liability on the franchisee, Jaipur IPL Cricket

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201447Private Limited and it would be incumbent to ascertainsuch liability of the franchisee for purposes ofappropriate sanctions under the Operational Rulesand/or the Franchise Agreement. The Committeeunderstands that the suspension imposed on Mr. RajKundra by the BCCI is still in force. The BCCI must take azero tolerance position as regards corruption in cricket andany possible violation of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Codeand the Operational Rules by any person. It goes withoutsaying that Mr. Raj Kundra and his wife Ms. Shilpa ShettyKundra were owners as per the Franchise Agreement andaccredited as such under the IPL Operational Rules. Theyare Team officials within the meaning of the said Rules.Being Team officials they are subject to the Code ofConduct for Players and Team Officials prohibiting bettingin course of IPL matches and would face appropriatesanctions under the Operational Rules. It would be infitness of things that pending final determination of theculpability of the Kundras, they be kept suspended fromparticipating in any activity of the BCCI including the IPLmatches in view of the materials on record.It may be put on record at this stage that Mr. SundarRaman, the Chief Operating Officer, IPL, had deposedbefore the Committee that Mr. Y.P. Singh from ICC ACSUhad verbally informed him earlier that there were reportsalleging that a number of owners/team officials wereinvolved in betting on IPL matches. Mr. Sundar Raman andthe BCCI apparently enquired from Mr. Y. P. Singh as to

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201448the authenticity of these reports and were informed by Mr.Y. P. Singh that there was no actionable information. Thisis also an arena which requires further detailedinvestigation, since only a proper, independent enquiry /investigation with statutory powers can unravel actionableinformation.

I. INVOLVEMENT OF THE UNDERWORLD, BOOKIESAND PLAYERSJUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014CHAPTER II49Betting in cricket in India is not legal. But there is a hugeillegal betting market in cricket matches and moreparticularly in the IPL. The amounts involved are mindboggling. The Delhi Police estimates that in one IPLmatch the total bets would be around Rs. 150 crores.Such an illegal betting market survives and flourishes bythe muscle power of the underworld. The various policeofficials with whom the Committee interacted unanimouslyendorsed the existence of the muscle power of theunderworld in running the betting syndicate.Investigations by the Delhi Police have revealed that theillegal cricket betting crime syndicate is being headed byDawood Ibrahim Kaskar, who is a known declaredterrorist, based abroad. The investigation of the DelhiPolice has disclosed the involvement of several formerplayers who were used by bookies/ fixers to gain access tovarious players and induce them to join this syndicate.According to the Delhi Police, the modus operandi of thissyndicate was using expensive gifts/ cash/ girls to induceyoung cricketers to join this syndicate. This organisedcrime syndicate, besides controlling illegal betting wasindulging in fixing performances of players and also therates of betting. The rates of betting were communicatedfrom abroad to various mega bookies. The syndicate of

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201450Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar was also using musclemen andhenchmen like Shaikh Shakeel @ Shakil Babu MohiddinShaikh @ Chotta Shakeel to intimidate various actors ofthis syndicate to comply with their directives. Threats ofuse of violence were used to settle disputes connected withpayments as well as to intimidate players who failed toperform after accepting gifts/ girls/money. The integrationof the markets along with streamlining of money transfersthrough hawala transactions and certainty of settlementsby muscle power opened up a huge avenue of makingwindfall gains for this syndicate. This led to anamalgamation of multiple sub conspiracies, all controlledand directed by the mega conspiracy of which DawoodIbrahim and Chotta Shakeel are the prime movers. Theconspiracy unfolds in various layers – initiators abroadsuch as Dr. Javed Chutani, major Indian bookies likeAshwani Agarwal @ Tinku Mandi, Ramesh Vyas,Chandresh Jain @ Jupiter, fixers/ henchmen such asChandresh Patel, Jitendra @ Jeetu Tharad, ex-players andlastly the players.Investigations further revealed that Dawood Ibrahim andhis aides decide the initial betting rates for each match,which as the match progresses move closer towards therates which actually reflect the real status of the match. Itis during this initial period that the bookies of the DCompany make huge profits. The rates fixed by the DCompany have credibility as a large number of matches/sessions in cricket matches are fixed by them and therefore

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201451they need not reflect the actual betting market sentimentsobserved and followed world over by gamblers who access ahuge number of websites which are legal in their hostcountries such as Betfair.The Delhi Police states that Mr. Chandresh Jain @ Jupiteris an important member of this criminal syndicate whichwas involved in spot / session fixing of players and inmanipulation of the illegal betting market for makingwindfall gains. During investigation made by the DelhiPolice it was revealed that on 20.04.2012, Mr. ChandreshPrakash Jain @ Chandresh Jain @ Jupiter was arrestedalong with his six other associates namely PrahladAggarwal, Vishnu Aggarwal, Sushil Maru, Bal Kishan,Sushil Aggarwal and Ankit Jain by the Jaipur Police in FIRNo. 176/12 u/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC, P.S.Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan for offence of illegalbetting in the then on going IPL 5, T 20 cricket matchbeing played between IPL teams, Kings XI Punjab andRoyal Challengers Bangalore. They were subsequentlyreleased on bail and Jupiter was again back in businessand indulging in illegal betting and engaging in high levelfixing of players in IPL 6.The confessional statement of Mr. Ramesh Vyas recordedunder Section 18 of the MCOCA by the Delhi Policerevealed that it was Jupiter who had introduced him to Dr.Javed Chutani and had facilitated Ramesh’s entry into thesyndicate and thereafter with the approval of Dawood

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201452Ibrahim and Chota Shakeel, Ramesh Vyas had graduallytaken over the Mumbai turf.The confessional statement of Chandresh Jain @ Jupiterindicates the prominent position occupied by accusedAshwani Aggarwal @ Tinku Mandi in the syndicate beingrun by Dawood Ibrahim and Chota Shakeel.The call transcripts between accused Ashwani Aggarwal @Tinku Mandi on mobile number 8447111113 and ChandraPrakash Jain @ Chandresh Jain @ Jupiter on 11.05.2013at 19: 33:19 hours mention the name of a star Indiancricket player in their conversation.Further, an intercepted voice calls between Mr. ChandraPrakash Jain @ Chandresh Jain @ Jupiter and accusedMr. Ashwani Aggarwal @ Tinku Mandi on 15.05.2013 at0042 hours shows interalia the involvement of Mr.Chandresh Jain in trans hawala operations, high levelfixing of players (names being taken of two internationallevel Indian cricketers) and connections with Pakistanand Dubai based members of the syndicate. The DelhiPolice in their deposition before the Committee took aposition that they were aware that conversations betweencertain bookies had disclosed contact of bookies withtwo former star Indian players, but did not take theinformation forward as they thought that the bookies weregenerally in the habit of boasting. According to DelhiPolice, lot of players had received gifts frombusinessmen/jewellers. The Delhi Police stated that there

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201453was a photograph of Mr. Chandresh Jain @ Jupiter with anInternational foreign player.In course of interception of phone calls between bookies,punters as well as foreign bookies in Pakistan etc, theMumbai Police had unearthed references made by bookiesto connections of some Indian and foreign players withbetting activities. Officers of the Mumbai police indicatedthat such investigations were not carried out because therewere no corroborations. It appears further from thedeposition of officers of the Mumbai Police that theseinformations were not taken forward in connection withsuch names, because in view of the considered opinion ofthe Mumbai Police, the bookies were simply “boasting” toincrease their own influence.It would therefore appear that all investigations made byDelhi Police and Mumbai remained confined to fringeplayers and localised investigation into the activities ofbookies and fixers. It would appear that what wasinvestigated was merely the tip of the iceberg. Names ofvarious other national and international players cameup in course of the investigations but theseinformations have not been investigated by anyagency. The Delhi Police disclosed that Mr. S. Sreesanthhad given them information to the effect that three famousplayers representing the Indian team were also involvedwith bookies and were getting flats and gifts from them.Save and except questioning one of these three players, nofurther action was initiated by the Delhi Police. According

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201454to Mr. Neeraj Kumar, former Commissioner of Police, Delhiif a player’s name features in any conversation betweenbookies, there is a thread of suspicion. According to him, itis important to ascertain the identities of the personsconcerned and follow up investigation into information inthe present transcripts needs to be done.Evidently, the betting syndicate is today operating virtuallyin the entire country and more particularly in megamarkets of Delhi and adjoining areas, Mumbai, Chennai,Indore, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Goa, Pune etc. Extensive useof electronic channels facilitates instant betting andsettlement of dues. The betting organised by this hugestructure involves a turnover of thousands of crores andthe windfall profit thereof ultimately benefits knownterrorists, who route the money to indulge in terroristactivities and thus poses a serious threat to nationalsecurity.Compared to the perils of this serious threat, the responseof the law enforcement agencies does not inspireconfidence. The various local law enforcement agencies areworking independently of each other and sometimes incross purposes. Informations though transferred betweensuch law enforcement agencies are viewed with suspicionand are not followed through in the manner as are requiredto be done. This is adequately brought out in the followingtwo significant instances.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201455(i) Mr. Chandresh Patel, according to Delhi Police is oneof the key henchmen / fixer of Dawood Ibrahim. Hewas in direct contact with the bookies in Pakistan,and it was through him that the crime syndicateoperated by Dawood initiated spot fixing byRajasthan Players. Curiously, Chandresh Patelthough known to the Mumbai police to be a coconspiratorwith Vindoo Dara Singh is shown only asa witness and not as an accused in the Mumbaichargesheet.(ii) The other significant case is of one Mr. Ramesh Vyas.The statement under Section 18 made by RameshVyas under MCOCA in the Delhi case states that,Ramesh Vyas was introduced to one Dr. JavedChutani, the alleged right hand man of DawoodIbrahim by Chandresh Jain @ Jupiter who facilitatedhis entry into the syndicate. Thereafter, with theapproval of Dawood Ibrahim and Chota Shakeel,Ramesh Vyas had gradually taken over the Mumbaiturf, which had earlier been run by one Firoz. Thisstatement of Ramesh Vyas was available to theMumbai Police being forwarded by the Delhi Police.The same is admissible in evidence in any criminaltrial where Mr. Ramesh Vyas is an accused. Yetcuriously, the Mumbai police negate any connectionbetween Ramesh Vyas and Dawood Ibrahim and havedenied before the Committee any knowledge that Mr.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201456Ramesh Vyas was in charge of the betting operationsof Dawood Ibrahim in the Mumbai turf. RameshVyas, according to the Mumbai chargesheet isprojected to be only a bookie and an exchangeoperator. It is also pertinent in this connection topoint out that the Q branch CID, Chennai Policewhich looks after internal security already hadRamesh Vyas in its radar and it has been disclosedbefore the Committee by Shri G.Sampath Kumar thatChennai Police was aware that Ramesh Vyas waslinked with Dawood.The fact that Mumbai police did not accept the role ofDawood Ibrahim in the betting racket in Mumbai evincesthat the Delhi Police and Mumbai police are working atcross purposes in so far as the link to Dawood Ibrahim isconcerned. In such a grave matter of national securitypertaining to involvement of a terrorist gang in runningillegal hawala operations in the lucrative betting market incricket, the two top police organisations, one of the politicalcapital and other of the financial capital of India cannot bepermitted to work at cross purposes. It is not surprisingthat all the accused persons in both the cases arepresently on bail and possibly back in business for thecoming IPL season.The investigating agencies have also been frustrated intheir attempts, more often than not, in view of the absenceof an appropriate substantial law on the matters of bettingand fixing in sports. It is necessary that the law

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201457enforcement agencies find a level playing field to eradicatecorruption in cricket.II.ROLE OF POLICEThere are certain aspects of investigations conducted byvarious police authorities which have drawn the attentionof this Committee and is required to be highlighted.(i) Role of Crime Branch, Mumbai PoliceA. In course of interception of phone calls betweenbookies, punters as well as foreign bookies inPakistan etc, the Mumbai Police had unearthedreferences made by bookies etc. to connections ofsome Indian and foreign players with bettingactivities. Officers of the Mumbai Police indicatedthat investigations into such information were notcarried out because there were no corroborations. Itappears further from the deposition of the officers ofMumbai Police that these informations were nottaken forward in connection with such namesbecause in view of the considered opinion of theMumbai Police the bookies were simply “boasting” toincrease their own influence. This position of theMumbai Police is difficult to accept. If thetranscripts of such interceptions revealed anycriminality, and betting in sports within Maharastrabeing a criminal offence, investigation ought to haveensued and corroboration was required to be found,

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201458if available, through such investigations. Theapproach of the Mumbai police appears very curiousand more so keeping in mind the abrupt voluntarystatement of the Mumbai Police before theCommittee that their focus in the said investigationwas Gurunath Meiyappan.B. On being questioned by the Committee based onearlier media reports, it was admitted by theMumbai Police that the I.PAD of Vindoo Dara Singhwas seized and the deleted data therein was soughtto be retrieved through forensic examination. Thisdata would definitely reveal the various contacts andpersons who were betting through Vindoo DaraSingh, who was already referred to in the CBIinvestigation report in 2000. Curiously, the MumbaiPolice has not charged anyone else except GurunathMeiyappan for laying bets in IPL matches throughRamesh Vyas, Vindoo Dara Singh and others. It isabsolutely unbelievable that Mumbai Police hasfailed to locate all such other persons who wereinvolved in this betting racket. It is inconceivablesuch a huge betting syndicate would function for thebenefit of only one person, Gurunath Meiyappan.The Mumbai Police has either been extremely naivein pursuing their investigation or they havedeliberately not investigated the entire bettingoperations. Possibly, their statement that Gurunath

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201459Meiyappan was the focus is relatable to such shoddyinvestigation.C. It is revealed from the investigation of the DelhiPolice that Ramesh Vyas was the main kingpin ofthe betting operation maintained by DawoodIbrahim in Mumbai. The Delhi police claims thatwhatever information it had on Dawood’s operationshave been handed over to the Mumbai police. TheMumbai Police however, informed the panel thatthey have no conclusive material that DawoodIbrahim was linked with the betting operations inMumbai. Mumbai Police admitted that protection bythe underworld i.e. muscle power is essential to runan organised betting syndicate in Mumbai. TheMumbai police failed to inform the panel as to whichgang give this protection to the betting operations inMumbai. There is therefore cause for a distinctimpression that for reasons not satisfactorilyexplained, the Mumbai Police was not willing toinvestigate the involvement of Dawood Ibrahim inthe betting racket. In the entire charge sheet filed bythe Mumbai Police, only one person who has laidbets has been charged as an accused, whereas allother accused are part of the betting syndicate.Evidently Mumbai police is protecting lots of personswho were participants of betting activities throughthis syndicate. The quantum of bets allegedly madeby Gurunath Meiyappan as per the transcripts will

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201460amount to a negligible fraction of the total betting inone IPL match as disclosed by the Delhi Police andother available literature on betting in sports.D. It may also be pointed out that information onproposed fixing of Mumbai Indians and RajasthanRoyals match on 15.05.2013 was available toMumbai Police on 12.05.2013 through theintercepted conversations of Asad Rauf, the umpirefor the match. Yet, Asad Rauf was never detained bythe Mumbai Police and was allowed to leave thecountry on 19.05.2013 after completing his pre fixedassignments. Even a discreet look out notice wasnot issued in the name of Asad Rauf. The extremereluctance to address the issue of involvement ofDawood Ibrahim and the curious failure of Mumbaipolice to detain Asad Rauf, a Pakistani umpire,indicates possibilities which may require furtherinvestigation, keeping in mind the recent disclosureby the Home Minister of the India that DawoodIbrahim is presently based in Pakistan.(ii) Role of the Special Cell, Delhi PoliceA. The Special Cell of the Delhi Police has done acommendable job in bringing to light theinvolvement and control of the organised crimesyndicate led by Dawood Ibrahim in the betting andfixing of cricket games in India. Having said that, itis necessary to deal with a few significant facts

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201461relating to the investigation conducted by the DelhiPolice. The Delhi Police themselves claim that thefour players were merely the tip of the iceberg. Theyhad materials on record which suggested that therewere definitely more players involved in spot /match fixing. Infact, S. Sreesanth had given theminformation that three prominent playersrepresenting India were also involved with bookiesand were getting flats and gifts from them.Curiously, the Delhi Police failed to investigate allsuch players whose names had cropped up duringinvestigation. Only one such player was summonedfor questioning by the Delhi Police. No further actionwas initiated. The transcripts of tape-recordedconversations between bookies, by Crime BranchDelhi Police also mention two other Indian stars.Delhi Police did not take all such informationforward and explained their conduct by saying thatthey had only limited information and because theywere aware that the bookies were generally in thehabit of boasting. It is difficult to accept suchexplanation and in fact Mr. Neeraj Kumar, formerly,Commissioner of Delhi Police stated in hisdeposition that further investigation should havebeen made as regard these references of bookies toplayers. If the tapes indicate criminality it is theresponsibility of the investigating agency to makeproper investigations so as to ascertain the truth.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201462B. The Delhi Police did not record the statement of Mr.Raj Kundra, either under Section 164 Cr.P.C. orunder Section 18 of MCOCA. No explanation forthis failure was forthcoming. After about 20 days, allinformations pertaining to Mr. Raj Kundra weretransmitted to the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur.(iii) Role of Jaipur PoliceA. The information pertaining to Mr Raj Kundra wasforwarded by the Delhi Police to the Commissionerof Police, Jaipur on 25.06.2013. No fruitfulinvestigation was carried out in this connection bythe Jaipur police.B. Md. Abdi had filed a written complaint in the matterof match fixing between IPL teams, Chennai SuperKings and Rajasthan Royals played on 12.05.2013at Jaipur. The complaint was filed before the Courtof competent jurisdiction, which forwarded the saidcomplaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. toJyotinagar police station wherein case no 269/2013u/s 420/120B IPC was registered. No record hasbeen placed before the Committee to show that anyworthwhile investigation was carried out in this caseas well and the serious allegations made thereinpossibly remain un-investigated.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201463(iv) Role of Chennai PoliceA. The Committee desired to verify the interrogationreport pertaining to Utham Jain @ Kitty inconnection with Q branch CID case no. 1/2013 u/S120B 468,471 IPC and the Passports Act 1967 asdeposed by G. Sampath Kumar. The Superintendentof Police Q Branch CID (Internal Security) appearedbefore the Committee at 11:00 AM on 25.01.2014.She admitted that there was a file in the Q branchpertaining to the aforesaid case. The Committee wasassured that the file would be produced at 4 PM bythe Q branch CID (Internal Security) and theinvestigating officer would be present. Thereafter, noone appeared before the Committee from Q branchat 4 PM and the concerned file was not produced.There was no information and/or anycommunication conveyed to the Committee either.B. The incident is important because the thenSuperintendent of Police of the Q Branch who hadsubmitted the interrogation report on 23.05.2013had deposed before the Committee that Shri UthamJain @ Kitty had stated about a match fixing dealconcluded on 27.04.2013 which implicated onimportant Indian player, Gurunath Meiyappan andone Shri Vikram Agarwal. The non-production of thesaid interrogation report is therefore highlysuspicious and there seems to be a deliberate

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201464intention to cover up the match fixing deal allegedlyarrived at on 27.04.2013.C. Shri Utham Jain @ Kitty after his interrogation bythe Q branch was handed over to the CBCID branchof Chennai police. Apparently, no investigation onthe match fixing was ever carried out by theChennai Police and the officers who were privy tothe contents of the Kitty’s statement under Section161 of the Cr.P.C. were immediately transferred outfrom their respective positions. Curiously, theinterrogation report of Kitty by the CBCID Branch ofChennai Police do not reveal anything about anydeal on 27.04.2013.D. This matter is of grave significance. There is anecessity for a further probe into the matter and thesame may therefore be directed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court.III.ALLEGATIONS AGAINST OTHER PLAYERSBoth Mumbai Police and Delhi Police have stated before theCommittee that the conversations as recorded in the tapesindicate connections of some Indian and Foreign playerswith betting activities. Infact, Delhi Police has disclosedthat according to Mr. S. Sreesanth, three prominent Indianplayers were involved with bookies. There are further

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201465allegations that in an under-cover investigation carried outby the Sports Illustrated magazine wherein tape recordingswere made, a prominent Indian capped player wasrecorded interacting with the bookies. A journalist whoapparently was connected with recording of tapes forSports Illustrated revealed that the said investigation foundlinks to Dawood Ibrahim and that the money launderedthrough booking activities were being used for fundingterrorist activities. The journalist could further identify thevoice of the player and stated that the player was part ofthe Indian squad which played the World Cup and is partof the present Indian team. The journalist also stated thatthe tapes had been handed over to ICC ACSU. Thejournalist refused to disclose the names of the Indianplayers involved. In spite of repeated requests to put thename of the said player in a sealed cover for perusal beforethe Hon’ble Supreme Court, the journalist appearedterrified and was very reluctant to do so and pleaded that itwould be dangerous for the journalist concerned.Mr. I. S. Bindra, an ex-President of the BCCI also madesimilar allegations and stated that he had always kept theAnti Corruption and Security Unit of the ICC (hereinafterreferred to as ICC ACSU) in the loop. He stated that heknew another former prominent Indian player was involvedin match fixing and was aware of his alleged involvementwith bookies along with a former reputed Indian player. Itis worthwhile to recollect at this stage that in the transcript

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201466of the tape recordings between Mr. Chandresh Jain @Jupiter and Ashwani Aggrawal @ Tinku Mandi at 0042 hrson 15.05.2013, there are references to high level fixing ofplayers where the names of two international Indianplayers were mentioned.It thus appears that names of six prominent Indian cappedplayers are available in tapes in connection with dealingswith bookies while two of these prominent Indian cappedplayers have also been named by none other than a formerPresident of BCCI.Another former President of BCCI, Mr. Shashank Manoharalso stated that all matches in IPL need to be investigated.IV.ALLEGATIONS AGAINST OTHER IPL TEAMSThere has been allegation made before the presentCommittee that the players of another IPL team were alsoinvolved in spot/match fixing and the same was beinginvestigated by the Pune police. However, due to paucity oftime, the Committee could not probe into that aspect of thematter.It is also required to be pointed out that the statementmade by Chandresh Patel @ Chand Bhai to the SpecialCell, Delhi police reveal that a prominent businessmanfrom Hyderabad who is also a politician, was activelyinvolved in fixing of players. It has been stated that this

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201467person had attempted fixing of certain players of anotherteam playing in IPL, for which meetings were held in fivestar hotels in Pune and Chennai. The meeting wasattended by Chandresh Patel and Jitendra Jain @ JeetuTharad, who are allegedly the fixers/ henchmen to fixplayers for the Dawood betting syndicate. There arecorroborative statements by accused Mohd. Yahiya, SyedDurrey Ahmed@ Sohaib and Babu Sunil Chander Saxena,recorded by the Special Cell, Delhi Police, who confirm thisincident.There has been entirely no investigation at any stage asregards the veracity of such claims/allegations. It isnecessary to delve deep into the matter in as much as, ifthe allegations are found to be true after a properinvestigation, drastic deterrent action can be taken.However, if the allegations are found to be untrue on anysuch proper investigation, the cloud of suspicion which hasengulfed the game of cricket will stand dissipated.It has been brought on record that the Anti-Corruptionunit of BCCI or the ICC Anti-Corruption and Security Unitare technically not qualified to make such an investigationin depth. The foundation for their constitution did notenvisage such wide investigative powers and the officials ofboth the unit have expressed their helplessness/ limitationbefore the committee to make any such investigation inabsence of any legal mandate. It is not surprising thereforethat none of the cases presently being criminallyprosecuted were detected by the BCCI Anti Corruption Unit

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201468(hereinafter referred to as BCCI ACU) or the ICC ACSU. Allthese aberrations came to light only due to informationreceived by the concerned police authorities by accident incourse of surveillance of telephonic communication inentirely different circumstances. The spot fixing matter wasdetected by Delhi Police in course of interception oftelephones kept under surveillance due to informationprovided by the central security agencies as being numbersof Dawood Ibrahim. The Q branch stumbled onto Kitty inconnection with surveillance of telephones arising out of afake passport case. Apparently Mumbai police is obliviousof the links to Dawood Ibrahim.The Hon’ble Supreme Court may therefore considerdirecting a comprehensive investigation into the entirebetting and match fixing episode in cricket and inparticular in IPL by a competent statutoryinvestigative agency with a view to identifying andprosecuting the criminals involved.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014CHAPTER IIIRECOMMENDATIONS69The Committee sought the assistance of the variousinteractors, who have generously given their invaluablesuggestions and recommendations. The Committee hasalso perused and considered the suggestions made by Mr.Y. P. Singh, ICC ACSU 2 and Mr. Ravi Sawani, BCCI ACU 3in the light of the allegations of corruption that struck IPL.These ardent supporters of the game have unanimouslyand compellingly articulated that there should be anadmonition to all concerned that the game of cricket isunder serious threat.The consolidated set of recommendations and suggestionsin this report are thus aimed at ensuring that corruption/malpractice such as those that have already been disclosedin the Report, be eradicated from the game of cricket andthe game of cricket and in particular, the IPL be cleansed.The recommendations may be broadly categorised as:I. INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION(i)Betting and gambling being a State subject in the7 th schedule of the Constitution of India, there is2 Anti- Corruption Security Unit3 Anti-Corruption Unit

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201470no consolidated uniform law applicable to theentire country. In view of the specific requirementsstipulated inSection 415 read with Section 420 ofthe Indian Penal Code the applicability of theseprovisions in matters of fixing of games/ spots/sessions is debatable. The status of law in regardto betting and fixing has therefore createdoperational impediment on the part ofinvestigating and prosecuting agencies incombating these corrupt influences in the sport. Itis most imperative to enact a substantive lawmaking all forms of manipulation of sports,corruption and malpractices a criminal offence.The law so enacted must be applicable uniformlyin the country and should stipulate the creation ofan independent investigating agency, a dedicatedprosecuting directorate and a separate judicialforum for expeditious trials. The law must providefor stringent deterrent punishments, similarprovisions as in Section 18 of the MCOCA andrestrictive bail provisions as in NDPS and othersimilar enactments. This is necessary becauseinflux of hawala money and involvement ofterrorist elements in matter of betting and fixing ofsports is causing serious threat to nationalsecurity. In view of the national interest involved,it would be necessary to explore the optionsavailable to the Parliament and the Legislatures of

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201471various States to adopt the procedure stipulated inArticle 252 of the Constitution of India.(ii) The BCCI must adopt a “Zero Tolerance Policy” inmatters of corruption in the game. It must adopt afar more pro-active role. Pending enactment ofsuch law by the Parliament it is necessary that theAnti-Corruption Unit of the BCCI be substantiallystrengthened with immediate effect. The BCCIshould create a dedicated fund for development ofsophisticated investigating machinery responsiblefor preventing betting and fixing in cricketmatches as well as for investigating anyinformation to this effect available from players orany other source. The ACU must establish asystem of accountability in the performance of itsAnti-Corruption officers and also create anexhaustive database of bookies, fixers, kingpins ofillegal betting and match fixers and make suchinformation available to all stakeholders.(iii) As have been noted the betting and fixing racket insports functions most efficiently as one well-oiledmachine throughout the country. The lawenforcement authorities on the other hand reveallack of co ordination and trust amongstthemselves and more often than not function atcross purposes. This has resulted in increasing thevulnerability of the country’s economy and

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201472remains a matter of concern for national security.It is necessary that the Hon’ble Supreme Courtmay create a Special Investigation Team or a JointInvestigation Team so as to include officers fromall specialised agencies such as enforcementdirectorate, Directorate of revenue intelligence,income tax authorities etc. The JIT may haveeither the CBI or the NIA as the nodal agency. TheSIT or the JIT will take over all pending cases andinvestigate all available information in the varioustapes referred to earlier and submit its report tothe Hon’ble Supreme Court within a stipulatedtime frame so as to obtain appropriate orders forprosecution and trial.II.ACCESS TO PLAYERSIt is evident that access to players, more so during the IPL,is far too free and easy leading to significant number ofapproaches being made to fix players or lure them to jointhe illegal betting syndicate. Supervision of players and anincreased measure of control over their activities, thoughmay be a sensitive issue, is necessary.The BCCI ACU and the ICC ACSU have interalia madevarious recommendations pertaining to hotelaccommodation of players, visitors access to their hotelrooms, temporary leave of players from hotels andattachment of security and anti-corruption officers with all

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201473IPL teams constantly. The proposals merit seriousconsideration by the BCCI subject to the caveat that whileensuring that the players are protected from contact ofundesirable elements, the restrictions themselves shouldnot be such which may ultimately affect the morale of theteam. It is necessary to remind ourselves that the playersare ambassadors of their country and the sport. Therestrictions therefore ought not to isolate them or expectthem to lead a monastic existence. The aim obviously is toprohibit unauthorised access by unsuitable /unscrupulouspersons under unsuitable circumstances.Measures which can be considered in this regard include:(i)The introduction of an accreditation system; onlyBCCI/IPL/ Team Management accredited personsshould be permitted access to players, incircumstances approved by the team management.(ii)Prohibition on access to player’s hotel roomsexcept for immediate family members.(iii)Strict control of telephonic access; only cellulartelephones issued to players by the BCCI shouldbe allowed and details of calls made and receivedshould be available so as to allow monitoring bythe BCCI. Possession of an unauthorised cell

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201474phone should be a punishable offence whichautomatically will entail deterrent punishment.(iv)Contact by players with media representatives,representatives of sponsors and the publicgenerally should be through the team managementspecifically.III.DISCLOSURES BY PLAYERSAnother set of measures, aimed at reducing the possibilityof players being vulnerable to improper approaches,include:(i)The imposition on all concerned of an obligation toreport, not only instances of approaches tohimself, but also any information which hereceives and any knowledge he obtains, howeverfar-fetched he personally may regard it, concerningany other person including a colleague, which issuggestive of improper conduct. This is a sensitiveissue amongst players. As experienced by theCommittee and lucidly explained by Mr. AndreOosthuizen and Mr. Gavin Tinkler in their book,“The Banjo Players” on the Hansie Cronje matchfixing scandal :

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201475“It’s not difficult to understand this close,undying loyalty. To be a member of a nationalteam involves admission to a brotherhood that isbased on staunch allegiance. The players in thenational squad spend something in the order of26 weeks of the year in each other’s company.That time sees them living, travelling and eatingtogether practicing at the nets for hours on end,day after day; venturing into distant countriesand cities where the only familiar faces are thoseof their team members. Teamwork and teamspirit is the bedrock of their lives…”Further,“But the same strong and abiding loyalty to theteam and to the captain creates a series ofproblems when any of the players decide, asCronje did, to involve themselves and attempt toinvolve their team members in things like matchfixing or other forms of corruption. The squaddoesn’t turn its back on the sinner, throw himout or cut him down. Their entire existence isabout being together, remaining loyal andhelping each other. Blowing the whistle on theoffender is against team spirit. In the eyes of theplayers, the newspaper reporters, cricketadministrators and the team’s medical staff are

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201476all outsiders, people who live on the fringes ofthe team but are not, in any true sense, part ofthe elite. It requires special courage for a playerto break rank and to report on any skulduggerythat’s going on within the team. By so doing, heopens himself up to abuse andmisunderstanding....This factor, the ties of brotherhood that bind theteam members to each other, is going to be one ofthe very real problems confronting the cricketworld as, in years ahead, attempts are made towipe out the match fixing scourge.”Thus, it is not difficult to understand the fact thatthere is an instinctive reaction against “whistleblowing”on friends and colleagues. It must be part ofa player’s education and training that this is notdisreputable conduct. On the contrary, it is thedecent and honourable thing to do, in the greaterinterest of the game and all who have to do with it.Consideration should be given to rewarding personswho report misconduct, actual or potential,Consideration should be given to anonymousreporting.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201477(ii)It is important to create a schedule of events whichare “notifiable events’ and reports of suchinstances are to be made compulsory, with thesanction of penalties to be imposed for nonreporting.Such events would include anyapproach (of whatever nature) by a bookie; punter;colleague; official or anyone else making any suchattempts to the player even though the same maysaid to have been made casually. This requirementbe made applicable for all cricketers at all levels ofthe game.(iii)It should be made mandatory to make full andimmediate disclosure by players and officials ofany gifts received (possibly above a certain value)or additional income earned besides the contractedfee. It must be clarified that “gifts” would meanany interest or income or other unusual benefitwhich is not cricket related. If a player has anydoubt about the propriety of anyone’s conductwith regard to an offer, or potential offer, of a gift,he should immediately report it to the concernedofficial or the IPL Integrity Unit (if such exists)alternatively to the team manager and the captainof the team.(iv)The BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Conduct forParticipants should be incorporated by referencein the player’s contract and the player is to

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201478acknowledge therein that he knows andunderstands the contents of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code, the obligations it places on himand the penalties for disobedience theretoincluding forfeiture of the contracted fee etc.(v)Access to bank accounts and other financialdocumentation should beavailable to the BCCIACU with the player’s prior consent; this consentcould be incorporated into the player’s contract.Access and information received from such accessmust be kept absolutely confidential. Access tosimilar documents of a player’s immediate familymembers and/ or other members of the family ortheir respective agents may well be justified inappropriate circumstances.IV.CONTROL AND SUPERVISION(i)It is necessary to incorporate comprehensive andstringent rules and regulations in the OperationalRules so as to bind all the stakeholders includingjournalists, commentators, broadcasters, etc.(ii)The BCCI/IPL should frame specific rules forassessing/ evaluating the credibility of owners inorder to prevent unscrupulous entities frompurchasing a franchise. It has been recommendedby the ICC ACSU and BCCI ACU that any auction

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201479in this regard should be subject to a pre auctionverification of the intending participants at suchauctions.(iii)A separate Code of Conduct should be enacted forOwners and Team officials, similar to theMinimum Standards for players and matchofficials with a specific provision prohibitingowners and team officials from betting. The Codeshould also prescribe sanctions/ punishments.(iv)A separate code should be enacted for theregistration and accreditation of Playersagents/Managers by the BCCI, where no playershould be allowed to align with an agent notregistered and accredited by the BCCI. Beforeaccreditation of players agents, their credibilityshould be ensured by the appropriate authority.Accreditation should be time specific and subjectto renewal after review of the performance andintegrity of the agents/managers.V. EDUCATION & TRAINING(i)It has come to the notice of the Committee thatbookies maintain a close vigil on players from anearly stage in their career and lure them with giftsand cash for a sustained period of time andeventually introduce them into illegal betting and

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201480fixing syndicate. It is therefore critical thatcricketers from their earliest days in the game, inaddition to learning how the game is played, bemade aware of the spirit of the game and the rulesof fair play, honesty and integrity to the game. Thiseducation in the ethics of fair play should beongoing, bearing in mind that the further acricketer progresses, the greater are the pressuresput upon him. Education programs such as theBCCI ACU Education module needs to be impartedto player’s right from the beginning of theirtraining days, and be extended to include cricketschools and academies both run privately as wellas run by the State associations.(iv)The BCCI should monitor continuous education ofall registered cricket players in the country, fromthe club level onwards and disseminate educativematerials in form of booklets to all buddingcricketers of the country. The BCCI may like toexplore the possibility of authoring a cricketer’shandbook incorporating FAQs for the young IndianCricketers in the line of the Athletes Handbook2013 published by the Go Sports Foundation,Bangalore.(ii)There has been a unanimous appeal to create anIntegrity Unit by the BCCI, quite apart from the

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201481IPL governing Council, comprising of formersenior players such as Shri Sachin Tendulkar,Shri Saurav Ganguly, Shri Rahul Dravid, Mr.V.V.S Laxman, Mr. Anil Kumble and any suchother persons with impeccable character, integrityand honesty. Induction of such players into theunit will give greater credibility and command therespect and confidence of the teams and findacceptance.Such a unit will be able to counsel andmentor young players, who are suddenly caught inthe midst of fame and glory of IPL making themextremely vulnerable to temptations.(iii)There has been a split response to the Anti-Corruption education that is being imparted toplayers by ICC ACSU during the IPL season. Thecritique of the Education module has beenprimarily based on the fact that education isimparted in English by facilitators/ trainers toplayers who are not well versed with the language.This criticism has been taken note of and it isrecommended that if BCCI continue with theservices of ICC ACSU and continue to impart itsEducation Program during the IPL season, thesame be conducted in vernacular languages aswell along with English. The Integrity Unit can beassociated with this program.

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201482(iv)There is a huge disparity of contract money paid toIPL players due to the distinction between cappedand uncapped players. Reputed players,particularly those who enjoy international status,are well very paid. However, it is also a fact thatthe professional life span of a cricketer is shortand it covers a crucial period of their lives whenthey might otherwise be qualifying themselves fortheir life’s work, in a profession or other calling.The fact that there is a palpable financialinsecurity amongst general and fringe players isundeniable. It is important therefore to ensure thefinancial security of players both in the immediateand the long term future in order to curbcorruption in cricket.VI.OPERATIONAL MECHANISMS(i)There should be a complete ban on post-matchparties or any other parties organised by privateindividuals or sponsors. In any official function, nooutsider may have access without officialauthorisation.(ii)BCCI while entering into contracts with its officialsponsors should incorporate prohibition onavailingthe services of any banned player by the official

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201483sponsor in any manner, including as TV/radiocommentator, during the period of such ban.(iii) Players should receive ongoing psychologicalsupport concentrating particularly on stressmanagement and counselling with regard to thepitfalls of success and vulnerability to approachesfrom unsuitable people.(iv)It has been disclosed to the Committee that theBCCI ACU maintains a database incorporatingtherein the names and details of undesirableelements like bookies, fixers etc. Similarly ICCACSU also maintains a separate database. It issurprising that the details of the database are notshared by the Anti-Corruption unit with theplayers, match officials, administrators etc. Someof the players with whom the Committee interactedhave stated that though they have been told toreport any approach by such undesirableelements, they were not aware as to who theseundesirable elements are. On being questioned asto why such databases are not shared withconcerned stakeholders the officers replied thatthey were concerned with possible retaliation byactions of defamation. Under the Indian laws, thisis incorrect, since a number of exceptions toSection 499 of Indian Penal Code take care of suchconcerns. The concern being totally misplaced, it

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201484is imperative that the details of suchunscrupulous undesirable elements be sharedwith all stakeholders including players, umpires,match officials, support personnel, administratorsetc.VII. PUNISHMENTS AND SANCTIONSIt is incumbent upon the IPL Governing Council and theBCCI to send a clear and emphatic message thatdishonesty in cricket will not be tolerated and the mosteffective way of conveying this message is by theprescription and imposition of severe and stringentpunishment. Most significantly, the punishment must be adeterrent; which implies that it should deter not only theoffender but also others, like minded, from offending. It isimportant to inform players that, where appropriate, an actof misconduct shall be referred to the Police, in addition towhatever internal disciplinary measures are taken. It isdesirable that the various forms of punishment be clearlydelineated; ranging from the lightest to the most severe.CONCLUSIONOne notes with utmost pain, that the folklore of corruptionand such other malpractices that has come to surroundthe game of cricket and in particular, IPL, unfortunatelyhas a ring of truth to it. Roots of corruption and

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201485malpractices have crept in deep into the game of cricket,more particularly, the IPL, and are seeping into the gameat an alarming rate. If unchecked, the same would bedamaging for the game of cricket and defeat publicconfidence in the integrity of the game. The problem isrequired to be addressed with absolute seriousness andwith a strong determination to cleanse the game. Anycomplacency is sure to shake public confidence. It wouldbe worthwhile to remind ourselves that the game of cricketis only as strong as the support it receives from the public.(NILAY DUTTA)MemberDate: February , 2014