Monday, February 24, 2014

BCCI Chief’s Son-In-Law Indicted For Betting, Passing Info

6 India players on bookie tapes: Panel seeks probe
‘Investigate Charges Against Raj Kundra’ 

New Delhi: In a setback to the Indian cricket board (BCCI) president and ICC chairman-designate N Srinivasan, the Supreme Court-appointed Justice Mukul Mudgal probe committee on Monday found his son-in-law and Chennai Super Kings team official Gurunath Meiyappan involved in betting and passing information about the team in IPL-6 matches to others.

It also concluded that contrary to the assertions of the Srinivasan camp that Meiyappan had no official status in CSK, he was “in fact acting as a team official if not the de-facto owner of CSK”.

While calling for a further probe into allegations of betting and spot fixing against Raj Kundra, part-owner of Rajasthan Royals, the panel also sought a probe into the possible involvement of international stars, including six capped Indian players, whose names figured in conversations between bookies taped by the police.

“The allegations of betting and passing on information against Gurunath Meiyappan stand proved. However, allegation of (match) fixing require further investigation,” said the panel, also comprising additional solicitor general L N Rao and Nilay Dutta, in its report to the Supreme Court.


  • Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan was
  • involved in betting and passing on inside information on Chennai Super Kings;
  • whether he indulged in fixing not clear
  • Meiyappan definitely a team official in CSK, if not de facto owner
  • CSK failed to rein in Meiyappan and hence is also in violation of the IPL’s rules
  • SC to decide on punishment for Meiyappan/CSK Allegations of betting and fixing against Raj Kundra, part-owner of Rajasthan Royals, need further investigation
  • Names of many international players, including six capped Indians, figure in taped conversations between bookies or in bowler Sreesanth’s statement, but not investigated by police
  • Mumbai police seems reluctant to probe Dawood angle in betting syndicates
  • Chennai police’s failure to probe alleged statement by bookie Kitty about a match being fixed and the statement itself not being on file are “highly suspicious”


There is, therefore, cause for a distinct impression that for reasons not satisfactorily explained, Mumbai police was not willing to investigate the involvement of Dawood Ibrahim in the betting racket... which may require further investigation” — Mudgal report

If an iota of wrongdoing is found from my side I will give up my share... They have obviously gone for the lowest hanging fruit and that’s unfortunate. —Raj Kundra | RAJASTHAN ROYALS CO-OWNER

I will read the report and react. —N Srinivasan | BCCI PRESIDENT

We should wait for SC’s views. The good that SC has done is that the IPL auction was not stopped. —Rajeev Shukla | BCCI VICE-PRESIDENT

‘Stand taken by franchisee contradicts fact’
New Delhi: The Justice Mukul Mudgal probe committee’s report also raised dark clouds over CSK’s participation in the IPL tournament this year by accusing it of breaching the rules by failing to rein in Meiyappan. Meiyappan’s illegal acts stood accentuated given his role/position in CSK, it said.

“The committee is also of the opinion that the franchise owner of CSK (India Cements) is responsible for failing to ensure Meiyappan (a team official) had complied with the BCCI anticorruption code, IPL operational rules, IPL regulations and hence the franchise’s actions are in violation of Section 4.4.1 of the IPL Operational Rules and Clause 11.3 of the franchisee’s agreement,” the panel said.

It left it to the SC to decide what punishment should be imposed for these violations saying this was beyond its terms of reference. “It is for the Supreme Court to decide what action, if any, is to be taken pursuant to this report,” it told a bench of Justices A K Patnaik and F M I Kalifulla.

The inquiry panel also flagged for the SC’s attention serious questions of conflict of interest raised against Srinivasan, both inside and outside the BCCI. “While it is evident that the questions raised before us about conflict of interest are serious and may have large-scale ramifications on the functioning of cricket, we do not deem it proper to pronounce our opinion on this issue as it is not directly in our terms of reference,” it said.

The report, presented to the court by counsel Gautam Bharadwaj and Vidushpat Singhania, said Meiyappan indulged in betting through Vindoo Dara Singh, who in turn was in direct touch with bookies and punters like Vikram Aggarwal. “Bets were placed by Meiyappan not only in favour of CSK but also against it,” it said basing its conclusion on various evidence including telephone intercepts.

It clarified that it was for the concerned criminal courts to determine whether Meiyappan and Vindoo were guilty of the offences alleged against them by various police forces in pending cases.

However, it indicted both India Cement and CSK for distancing themselves from Meiyappan’s activities when it was clearly established by the evidence that he was a team official. CSK had pleaded that the team should not be penalized for actions of Meiyappan.

“The franchisee owners (India Cement) had defended the actions of the franchisee by contending/stating that Gurunath Meiyappan was not related in any way with the franchisee. The stand taken by the franchisee appears to be contradicting the factual position,” the committee said.

It faulted Meiyappan for flouting IPL rules as well as the IPL code of conduct for players and team officials by bringing the game of cricket into disrepute and the IPL anti-corruption code by indulging in betting.

The match between Rajasthan Royals and CSK at Jaipur on May 12, 2013 needed to be thoroughly probed to see whether there was any merit in the allegation that it had been fixed, the panel said. Meiyappan and CSK apart, “allegations of betting and spot fixing against Raj Kundra, team owners of Jaipur Cricket Private Limited, need to be probed further”, the panel said.

“We are clearly of the view that statements under Section 164 of the criminal procedure code by Umesh Goenka clearly required further and serious investigations as Raj Kundra and his wife Shilpa Shetty are part owners of Rajasthan Royals,” it said.

  • IPL governing body should be independent of BCCI
  • Players' agents should be registered and should not be allowed to travel with the players
  • Players should not have stakes in agencies involved in cricket
  • Separate law, investigating agency and courts to deal with betting and match-fixing charges
  • Law must be stringent like antiterror and anti-drug laws
  • Iconic players like Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and Anil Kumble must be involved in grooming young players to teach them ethics of game
  • Ban post-match parties where elements have free access to players
  • List of undesirable elements maintained by BCCI should be circulated among players


According to the Justice Mudgal Probe Committee, Gurunath Meiyappan was found in violation of the following IPL rules...

FOR BRINGING THE GAME INTO DISREPUTE Section 2.2.1 (of IPL Operational Rules): Each franchisee shall procure that its team shall in good faith compete to the best of its ability ... in each match it participates. Section 2.14: Each person shall not ... act or omit to act in any way which would or might reasonably be anticipated to have an adverse affect on the image and/or reputation of ... any player, any official, the BCCI, the League and/or the game or which would otherwise bring any of the foregoing into disrepute.

BETTING Article 2.2.1 (of IPL Anti Corruption Code): Placing, accepting, laying or otherwise entering into any bet with any other party (whether individual, company or otherwise) in relation to the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any match or event. Article 2.2.2: Soliciting, including, enticing, instructing, persuading, encouraging, facilitating or authorising any other party to enter into a bet for the direct or indirect benefit of the participant in relation to the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any match or event. Article 2.2.3: Ensuring the occurrence of a particular incident in a match or event, which occurrence is to the participant’s knowledge the subject of a bet and for which he/she expects to receive or has received any reward.

FOR BRINGING THE GAME INTO DISREPUTE Articles 2.4.4 (of IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials): Where the facts of the alleged incident are not adequately or clearly covered by any of the above offences, conduct that either; (a) is contrary to the spirit of the game; or (b) brings the game into disrepute.

“The Committee is (also) of the view that if the allegations of betting against Mr. Raj Kundra and Ms. (Shilpa) Shetty who are part owners of Rajasthan Royals, stand proved the same would constitute a serious infraction of Sections 2.2.1 and 2.14 of the IPL Operational Rules for bringing the game in disrepute, Articles 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the IPL Anti Corruption Code for acts of betting and Articles 2.4.4 of the IPL Code of Conduct.”
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN

No comments:

Post a Comment