In order to serve content on our website, we rely on advertising revenue which helps us to ensure that we continue to serve high quality unbiased journalism.
To know how to disable your Ad Blocker, please
Please refresh your page, once Ad Blocker is disabled
The Board of Control for Cricket in India could initiate a separate probe against Rajasthan Royals co-owner Raj Kundra on the betting allegations levelled against him by the Delhi Police.
The BCCI was supposed to discuss the allegations in Monday’s emergency working committee meeting in New Delhi but might change its mind and launch a full investigation.
Asked if a separate probe was in the offing, BCCI interim chief Jagmohan Dalmiya told HT, “We are discussing that in our meetings right now. I can’t give you any details. A final decision will be taken after Monday’s meeting.”
If the BCCI does declare a probe, it will be the second time it will be doing so, after the police had taken the initiative to bring similar charges against Chennai Super Kings team principal, Gurunath Meiyappan.
This raises the question: Why does the BCCI need to rely on police statements despite having an anti-corruption unit that was supposed to keep a close watch on all the matches in the Indian domestic Twenty20 league.
The existing BCCI rules of procedure in such cases however seem cryptic. Article 2.2.1 of ‘offences under anti-corruption code’ states that ‘placing, accepting, laying or otherwise entering into any bet with any other party’ amounts to an offence.
But Article 3.1 under ‘standard of proof and evidence’ says that ‘unless otherwise described herein, the burden of proof shall be on the designated anti-corruption official (or his/her designee) and the standard of proof in all cases brought under this anti-corruption code shall be whether the BCCI disciplinary committee is comfortably satisfied, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that is being made, that the alleged offence has been committed.’
However, article 3.2 says, ‘The disciplinary committee shall not be bound by judicial rules governing the admissibility of evidence. Instead, facts relating to an offence may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.’