Ex-BCCI panel chief Neeraj Kumar's book talks of 'malpractices' in Indian cricket
New Delhi (PTI): Former IPS officer Neeraj Kumar, who strayed into the world of cricket when he was appointed head of BCCI's Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU) in 2015, says during his stint, he realised fixing is the proverbial tip of the iceberg of corruption in cricket and a "minuscule percentage of the large-scale chicanery that cricket administrators indulge in".
Published by Juggernaut Books, "A Cop in Cricket" is an account of Kumar's personal trials as ACU chief (June 1, 2015 - May 31, 2018) at the BCCI and his "witness statement of the three critical years of the national cricket body caught in the throes of change".
Kumar says in his book, he has attempted to give the readers an "overview of the malpractices that take place in the name of cricket in our country".
At the same time, he says, having witnessed the goings-on in the BCCI in the wake of the Supreme Court interventions following the Mudgal Committee and Lodha Committee reports, "I am also able to write about the 'agents of change', appointed by the Supreme Court to clean up the Augean stables that is the BCCI".
"In the three years that I spent at the BCCI, I realised that fixing was the proverbial tip of the huge iceberg of corruption in cricket. Fixing is, in fact, a minuscule percentage of the large-scale chicanery that cricket administrators indulge in," he writes.
"The handsome revenues earned by cricket in India - thanks to the IPL - are parcelled off to state cricket associations, where the money is mostly misappropriated. The 2015 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case against the top bosses of the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) for embezzlement of crores of rupees given to them by the BCCI is a case in point," Kumar claims.
He also goes on to allege that many "unsavoury things also happen at the grassroots level" during team selections. "Those happenings remain a matter between the selector and the aspiring cricketer or his family."
He claims during his tenure at the BCCI, his unit had to look into several such complaints, including a few where sexual favours were sought from young cricketers.
"We were frequently approached by players and their guardians complaining that they were cheated of lakhs of rupees by coaches or officials who promised them a place in an IPL or Ranji team and then disappeared, leaving them high and dry," Kumar writes.
In the book, Kumar also mentions that Vinod Rai, head of the Committee of Administrators (CoA) of the BCCI appointed by the Supreme Court to take over the governance of the BCCI in 2017, and the then BCCI CEO Rahul Johri enjoyed a 'father-son' relationship, where the "father didn't wish to hear anything against his prodigal son".
Kumar claims he brought several issues connected with Johri to the notice of Rai.
"He always gave me a patient hearing and made me feel he was on my side and would discipline Rahul Johri suitably. But I noticed he did nothing of the sort," he writes.
"Looking back at the sequence of events, I continue to be appalled and outraged. The defaulting CEO had conspired with the chief administrator to embarrass me and pass on the blame for his own misdoings to me in a meeting and had shared his plans with a journalist.
"Even more hurtful was that Rai pretended to be on my side only a couple of hours earlier and conducted himself in the meeting along the lines his CEO had scripted for him, even when he knew all the facts," he says.
Kumar also writes that with "Anurag Thakur, who had a tight leash on Johri, gone, the CEO gradually came into his own. Johri, who had political clout with a powerful central minister backing him, became the blue-eyed boy of Rai".
According to the author, the main focus of cricket administrators in India should be to ensure that help - monetary or otherwise - for struggling players at the lower level needing aid reaches only the deserving.
Kumar also writes that Indian fans really get a raw deal.
"There is hardly a stadium that can boast of a world-class spectating facility with clean toilets, availability of hygienic food and refreshments, clean drinking water, parking facilities, smooth accessibility, firefighting equipment, and so on. End of the day, it is on account of the fans that the Board generates enormous revenue, but sadly nobody cares for them.
"The so-called cricket administrators, most of whom have never held a cricket ball or bat in their lives, end up as the main beneficiaries of the monies earned by cricket in this country, at the expense of the fans of the game and the players," he says.
On legalising betting, Kumar writes: "I have always had reservations about this point of view. First, no political party in power would risk legalising betting in sports. It would be widely perceived as giving legal sanction to gambling, which is otherwise a criminal offence.
"But the political fallout of such a move would be substantial and, therefore, it is unlikely to happen any time soon. More importantly, even if the government legalises betting, how many bettors would come forward to place their wagers using 'white money'?"
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
