Findings of an investigation into cricket players and management from teams belonging to the Karnataka Premier League Twenty20 tournament yielded a surprising result from a high court judge.
Despite the Bengaluru police report uncovering evidence of match-fixing, Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar has quashed the serious charges affecting four people – Karnataka captain C M Gautam, players Abrar Kazi and Amit Mavi, and the owner of the Belagavi Panthers team Asfak Ali Thara.
Among the justifications against the evidence compiled on Karnataka, the judge used a peculiar argument, ruling that betting on cricket matches does not amount to gaming as defined by the Karnataka Police Act.
The judgement has raised reams of questions throughout India and the sport of cricket, with many pointing out it is yet more proof that an independent, government-regulated gambling body is required.
What Are The Accusations?
Four team members are accused of conspiring to spot-fix, which is the practice of organising and engineering specific match events to occur.
The charges were as follows:
- The state police allege the Belagavi Panthers owner Asfak Ali Thara bribed the Bellary Tuskers captain C M Gautam Rs 7.5 lakh. The nature of his offer was to ensure his off-spinner, Abrar Kazi, bowled an over that conceded a minimum of 10 runs. Kazi received an advance of Rs 2.5 lakh for the role. Records show 11 runs were conceded, including two wides.
- C M Gautam is also alleged to have accepted a bribe totalling 15 lakh from Thara to bat slowly during the KPL finals in 2019 against the Hubli Tigers. The skipper accumulated 29 runs from 37 balls as the Tuskers lost by eight runs.
What Did The Court Say?
Justice Kumar surmised that even if the charges were accurate, match-fixing would not qualify as cheating, as set out under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
“The essential ingredients to be present are deception and the dishonest inducement of a person to deliver any property or to alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security. It is true that if a player indulges in match-fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence.”
What is more, the court decreed betting on cricket matches does not qualify as gaming as per the Karnataka Police Act to curb illegal gambling in the state.
“If section 2(7) of Karnataka Police Act is seen, its explanation very clearly says that game of chance does not include any athletic game or sport. Cricket is a sport, and therefore even if betting takes place, it cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of ‘gaming’ found in Karnataka Police Act.”
What Has Been The Reaction?
General incredulity and sadness – four defendants appear to have avoided a fair match-fixing trial because of a loophole in the law, not because of any issues with the evidence presented.
Many fear it sets a dangerous legal precedent, arguing it leaves local and national cricket more exposed than ever to criminality and money laundering.
A recent paper from ENV Media analysing off-shore gambling licences and regulated markets highlighted the necessity of a national gambling authority in India.
The research was firmly in favour of a holistic and rounded regulatory approach to online betting sites in India:
“In a nation with widespread illegal betting and gambling (reportedly worth well over $100bn annually), criminal activity has had the chance to flourish.”
“Emerging markets (India in particular but not only) will benefit from creating a central regulatory framework, a gambling oversight body, and a Consumer Data protection regulation.”
The case surrounding the Karnataka Premier League Twenty20 tournament is a perfect example of where a national body can override the messiness of local law and come to a fair and considered judgement after all due process.
Furthermore, the paper presents there are other benefits to betting industry regulation in India, including:
- The public interest. There is much to gain from taxes, consumer protection, and job creation.
- Sector transparency will stimulate stable investor interest from reliable sources.
- The ability to eliminate undesirable effects is enhanced by supervisory agencies, monitoring tools, and information campaigns.