Sreesanth escaped due to vacuum of law: Former Delhi CP Neeraj Kumar
New Delhi, Apr 7: Stakeholders have shown a distinct lack of seriousness in bringing a law against corruption in Indian sports, a reason why someone like tainted former pacer S Sreesanth got away despite strong evidence of spot-fixing against him in the 2013 IPL, former Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar has said.
Kumar, a celebrated IPS officer who served for 37 years, was in charge of Delhi Police when its Special Cell under his guidance arrested Sreesanth and fellow Rajasthan Royals cricketers Ajit Chandila and Ankit Chavan on spot-fixing charges.
However, in 2019, the Supreme Court, despite ruling that there was evidence against the former India player, asked BCCI to reconsider the life ban on him. The punishment was eventually reduced to a seven-year suspension that ended in September, 2020.
"The case seemingly didn't go anywhere...unfortunately, there is no law (in India) to deal with corruption in cricket or corruption in sports in general," Kumar said during an exclusive interaction with PTI journalists at its headquarters here.
"Even a country like Zimbabwe has specific law. Australia, New Zealand have it...in Europe, there is a law because corruption is there not just in cricket but in football, tennis, golf," said the 70-year-old.
He was also associated with the Hansie Cronje match-fixing scandal in 2000 as part of CBI's investigating team. Kumar said the biggest roadblock in prosecuting corruption in sports is the absence of a law.
"So many things that we do, they do not stand test of judicial scrutiny, for instance. If we say, during match-fixing, people were cheated, now the court will ask, show me one person, who is cheated, produce that person in court," he rued.
"Who will come to the court and say I went to a cricket match expecting fair-play and for everybody to play to his or her potential? So, in the absence of a victim, it becomes very difficult to prove a case," Kumar explained the grey areas.
In India, a law to curb the malice has been in the works since 2013. The Prevention of Sporting Fraud Bill (2013), which was tabled in Lok Sabha in 2018, had a provision for five-year imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10 lakh for those found guilty of sporting fraud, including fixing.
The bill was drafted by Justice (retd) Mukul Mudgal and was seen as a game-changer to curb match-fixing.
It was to replace the 'Public Gambling Act of 1867', under which anyone indulging in betting could be fined only Rs 200 or handed three months in prison.
Sreesanth is back in the mainstream and even played Ranji Trophy for Kerala before retiring from first-class cricket. He is now seen in various Legends' Leagues and also gives expert opinion on various broadcast forums.
"...court has praised the work done by the Police. The judge said special cell has done excellent work...taken great pains to expose this racket, but in absence or vacuum of law, I am not in a position to hold anyone of them guilty and sentence them. These were his exact words."
Kumar, who wrote the book 'A Cop in Cricket' about his experiences handling corruption in the sport, is hopeful that the matter, which has been opened again in the Delhi High Court, will reach its logical conclusion.
"...we have challenged that order and it is now in Delhi HC but it has not proceeded much initially because of COVID but now few hearings have taken place and you shouldn't be surprised if the order is reversed, because we have so much other evidence.
"Sreesanth got reprieve from Kerala HC but it has not said he is innocent."
Kumar also feels that the case against former India skipper Mohammed Azharuddin, who was implicated in the 2000 scandal, "wasn't allowed to be completed".
"...if the Azharuddin case would had been allowed to reach its logical conclusion, some very big names would have been exposed but that was also not allowed.
"...somewhere there is lack of seriousness in dealing with corruption in sport, particularly cricket. Big names did come to light, they were put in a sealed envelope and it still remains sealed in the Supreme Court," Kumar referred to the names that Justice Mudgal's committee submitted to the apex court.
Anti-corruption law in sport needed
Kumar believes that the government can earn goodwill by passing the anti-corruption bill lying in Parliament.
"If we have that law, scenario will change completely, people will not go scot-free. It's a low hanging fruit...I don't know why they are not doing it," he said.
BCCI indifferent to corruption
Kumar also had an opportunity to work as the chief of BCCI's Anti Corruption Unit (ACU) for close to four years and he didn't find the world's richest Board sincere in dealing with corruption.
"...they were totally indifferent to the whole matter of corruption and they didn't give me the necessary resources," he said.
Satisfaction in curbing private leagues
The BCCI provided Kumar only two people for assistance and yet, he said, they managed to clamp down on private leagues which were hot-beds of corruption.
"We did successfully bust many cases...The phenomenon of private leagues, where some people get together and hold a league only to indulge in fixing. We had success in stopping some of them."
The experience left him "quite disillusioned" with cricket in general.
"I stopped watching IPL as I was hugely disappointed. Having worked in BCCI, I am not enamoured by the game as I was at one point in time."
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)
