I.

INTRODUCTION

Sports Law refers to the set of laws dealing with the regulation of sports which can be
divided into amateur, professional and international sports. Sports Law involves several legal
aspects including antitrust, torts, contracts, fraud, etc., Sports Law in India, unlike certain
European Countries is highly undeveloped and more so is Sports Fraud Law. Cricket is one
of the most popularly followed and enjoyed sport in India. This has led to its
commercialisation in all possible ways in this cricket crazy nation.

The Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) is a society registered under the Tamil
Nadu Societies Registration Act and enjoys monopoly as regards the regulation of the sport.
The BCCI is responsible for the management, governance and control of all forms for
professional and competitive cricket in India. The unprecedented interest in the rebel Indian
Cricket League (ICL) led to the launch the Indian Premier League (IPL) Tournament as a
commercial venture by the BCCI in the year 2008 with a view to provide entertainment to the
masses and to bring newer audience into the sport of cricket.

The glamorization of cricket through the Indian Premier League (IPL) T20 tournament has
had several advantages and disadvantages. The tournament has acted as a viable platform for
many young cricketers to showcase their talents at the national stage and international stage
apart from providing financial security. However, on the other hand IPL tournament resulted
in problems such as conflict of loyalty with players picking IPL teams over national teams
and also the development of a huge illegal betting market on the matches.

One of the biggest controversies relating to cricket in India was the IPL Spot Fixing Scandal
which opened a can of worms revealing the involvement of several cricketers as well as
administrators in the illegal betting and spot fixing apart from questions relating to conflict of
interest in IPL. It also showed the existence of spot fixing in the IPL matches which came as
a rude shock to the millions of fans throughout the entire nation who followed the game with
avid interest and enthusiasm. The BCCI was duty bound to ensure that the game of cricket in
played in a level playing field in the true spirit of the game free from any form of corruption.
But the IPL Spot Fixing scandal has showed that the BCCI has grossly failed in this
endeavour thereby denting the image of cricket in India.

1|Page
The BCCI as well as Indian Premier League has its own set of rules and regulations relating
to the prevention of corruption and other such unscrupulous practices such as the BCCI Anti-
Corruption Code for Participants, BCCI’s Minimum Standards for Players and Match
Officials, IPL Governing Rules, IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Participants, etc.,
However, India did not have any viable sports fraud law to punish these culprits resulting in
most of them escaping from criminal liability in the Courts of Law. This incident proved the
urgent need for a comprehensive sports fraud law to battle the menace of fixing in India.

The BCCI has also been constantly opposing any move on the part of the Government of
India to restrict and regulate the powers of the BCCI including the attempt to bring the BCCI
under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The BCCI which exercise public
functions is amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. So,
the BCCI is no doubt bound to act as per the principle of fairness, justice and transparency.
Thus there is no ground for the BCCI to oppose its inclusion under the RTI Act, 2005 which
paves the way for transparency and fairness in the working of the BCCI.

Sports should be corruption free and transparent and sporting bodies should be accountable to
the public to maintain credibility. It has to be reiterated that maintaining the fundamental
imperatives of the game the cricket is essential because it alone ensure the public confidence
in its purity. Unfortunately in India almost all Sporting bodies are pervasively controlled by
Politicians and Political bodies.1 This has led to widespread corruption in sporting bodies and
has hampered the growth of sports in India.

The Government of India has prepared a draft bill on the ‘Prevention of Sports Fraud’ aimed
at curbing and punishing sports fraud in India.2 It is quintessential that this bill be passed by
the Parliament and made into a law to check sports fraud and fixing in India. This project will
discuss in detail the IPL Spot Fixing Case and its legal implications on the stakeholders
involved. It will also deal with the regulatory mechanism for prevention of corruption in sport
in internationally cricket and make a detailed analysis of the draft bill proposed.

1
See, Vyoma Jha, Sports and Competition Law in India, A Critical Study with Reference to Cricket (accessed
from: http://cci.gov.in/images/media/ResearchReports/sports_and_Competition_Law-
Final_20080715135912.pdf).
2
See, India set to introduce Sports Fraud Bill to curb corruption, Rediff Cricket (accessed from:
http://www.rediff.com/cricket/report/india-set-to-introduce-sports-fraud-bill-to-curb-corruption/20150730.html).

2|Page
 II. FIXING IN SPORT: A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Fixing in Sport is not a new problem plaguing the field of sport and it is almost as old as sport
itself. They can be classified into two major categories namely, betting motivated match-
fixing and sports motivated match-fixing (non-betting cases). Match-fixing motivations can
refer to obtaining direct or indirect economic benefits; this can be linked to betting or non-
betting cases. Betting motivated cases involve fixing competitions with the primary aim of
achieving an economic gain indirectly from sport through betting activity particularly on the
occasion of "big sporting cases".

The first case of match-fixing in modern sport seems to have occurred in 1915 in a match
between Manchester United and Liverpool, which was fixed in Manchester’s favour and
United won 2:0 and avoided relegation. The ‘Black Sox Scandal’ in 1919 involving eleven
members of the Chicago White Sox baseball team was the first proven case of betting
motivated match-fixing.3 In one of those games, the team lost 9:1 to the Cincinnati Reds and
one year later players admitted to deliberately thwarting the World Series with the
involvement of a gambling syndicate.

In sports motivated match-fixing – the fixing of a competition with the primary aim of
achieving a sporting advantage directly from its result. Sporting motivations may ‘simply’
involve winning a match or a competition, escaping relegation or qualifying for a higher level
of the competition. Whilst economic benefits are not the primary objective, it is clear that this
results in a second step of sporting advantage. These examples lead to economic advantages
illegally obtained these sports cases can often fit with our definition of match-fixing.4

The first documented case of sporting motivated match-fixing seems to be that of the boxer
Eupolos of Thessaly who, at the Olympic Games of 388 BC, bribed three of his competitors
to allow him to win a gold medal. In modern sport, famous examples of sporting motivated
match-fixing include the 1971 Bundesliga scandal, the 1982 Belgian case ‘Standard-
Waterschei’, the OM-VA case in France (1993-1995), the Italian ‘Calciopoli’ scandal (2006)
and the alleged race-fixing at Singapore gate in Formula One in 2008.

3
See, Shayan Dasgupta, Match Fixing: Threat to Indian Sport’s Integrity (accessed from:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2261311).
4
See, Match fixing: Mapping of Criminal Law Provisions in EU 27. March 2012. KEA European Affairs
(accessed from: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/studies/study-sports-fraud-final-version_en.pdf).

3|Page
 III. THE IPL SPOT FIXING SCANDAL

On the night of 15/16.05.2013, a team of the Special Cell, Delhi Police apprehended and
arrested four cricket players5 and several others in connection with FIR No. 20/2013 dated
09.05.2013 under Section 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On 03.06.2013, after
approval from the competent authority, Section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) were added to the said FIR.

The allegations against the players were that they had allegedly indulged in spot/session
fixing by underperforming or making other players underperform, in pre decided overs
during certain matches played by Rajasthan Royals in IPL 2013. The Police also arrested
several other bookies and punters allegedly involved in conspiring with players to fix spots
and using such advance information, about the occurrence of an event, made windfall gains
through illegal betting in the ongoing IPL matches.

After the arrests the BCCI under its Rules and Regulations appointed a Commissioner, Mr.
Ravi Sawani on 18.05.2013 to make a preliminary inquiry into the alleged acts of spot fixing
and furnish a report within 30 days and the final report which was submitted on the
08.07.2013 found all the four arrested players guilty of offences under the BCCI Anti-
Corruption Code for Participants and recommended to the Disciplinary Committee of the
BCCI to impose such sanctions suitable to the offence committed.

On the basis of another independent investigation, the Crime Branch of Mumbai Police
carried out a raid on 14.05.2013 on the premises of Ramesh Vyas, a bookie in Mumbai in
connection with CR No 61/2013.6 Pursuant to this investigation, the phone of Mr. Virendra
Randhawa @ Mr. Vindoo Dara Singh was placed under interception by the Mumbai Police

This revealed his links to Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, an alleged Team Principal of IPL team,
Chennai Super Kings, and the son in law of the BCCI President, Mr. N. Srinivasan, also the
Managing Director of India Cements Limited, owner of IPL team, Chennai Super Kings.
Subsequently, Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan was summoned by the Mumbai Police under Section

5
The arrested players were S. Sreesanth, Ankeet Chavan, Ajith Chandela and Amit Kumar Singh (ex-player)
belonging to the IPL team Rajasthan Royals.
6
He was charged under 465, 466, 468, 471, 419, 420, 212, 34 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code
read with Section 4 & 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act read with Section 66(A) of the Information
and Technology Act, 2000.

4|Page
160 of the Cr.P.C. in the said case and after detailed interrogation and verification of prima
facie evidence against him arrested on 25.05.2013.

During the investigation of FIR No. 20/2013 by the Delhi Police, Mr. Raj Kundra, one of the
owners of the Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited, the franchisee who owns Rajasthan Royals,
was summoned and examined on 05.06.2013. It was alleged by the Delhi Police that Mr. Raj
Kundra had confessed to betting in some of the matches of IPL Season 6.

The BCCI appointed a two Judges Commission comprising of Justice T. Jayaram Chouta
(Retd.) and Justice R. Balasubramanian (Retd.) on 29.05.2013 to investigate into the
allegations against Mr. Raj Kundra, Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited, Mr. Gurunath
Meiyappan and India Cements Limited.7 The Commission in its Report stated that the BCCI
could not make out a case against the aforesaid persons and that they had not committed any
offence nor found guilty of violating either the Operational Rules or any other Regulation of
the IPL.

On a PIL filed in the High Court of Bombay challenging the constitution of the two Judges
Commission by the BCCI, the Court held that the constitution of the Commission to be ultra
vires to the BCCI regulations and the Operational Rules. 8 Against the decision a Special
Leave Petition came to be preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.9

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, without casting aspersions on the two Judges Commission and
on consideration of the fact that the Mumbai Police had submitted its charge sheet against
Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, constituted the a three member Probe Committee 10 headed by Mr.
Justice Mukul Mudgal, retired Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to
conduct an independent probe into the allegations.11

The IPL Probe Committee after a detailed analysis, probe and study came to a conclusion that
Mr, Gurunath Meiyappan as well as Mr. Raj Kundra are prima facie guilty of engaging in
betting activities in the contested IPL matches as averred by the police. It held that Mr.
Gurunath Meiyappan was included under the definition of ‘team official’ and so was Mr. Raj
Kundra and hence both of them were liable under the existing rules and regulations.

7
The Commission was setup under Clause 3.1. of Section 6 of the IPL Operational Rules 2013.
8
See, PIL Petition No. 55/2013 dated 30.07.2013. (‘Cricket Association of Bihar vs BCCI amongst others’).
9
See, SLP Civil No. 26633/2013.
10
The other members of the Committee were Mr. L. Nageswar Rao, Senior Advocate and Additional Solicitor
General of India as Member and Mr. Nilay Dutta, Senior Advocate as Member.
11
See, The Justice Mudgal IPL Probe Committee Report, Genesis of the Probe, p. 1.

5|Page
It also held that the respective franchisees also are liable to be punished under the IPL
Operational Rules for having failed to prevent them from engaging in the aforesaid activities
in contravention to the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants, the IPL Code of
Conduct for Players and Team Officials, the BCCI Minimum Standards for PMOA.

The IPL Probe Committee Report also deals in detail about the nexus between underworld,
bookies and players in the IPL matches. It talks about how of this syndicate was using
expensive gifts/ cash/ girls to induce young cricketers to join this syndicate. The report states
that the integration of the markets along with streamlining of money transfers through hawala
transactions and certainty of settlements by muscle power opened up a huge avenue of
making windfall gains for this syndicate.

The IPL Probe Committee Report has come with several recommendations on the
investigative and prosecutorial side, with respect to restriction of access to players,
disclosures by players, control, supervision, education and training of players and support
staff on these aspects with a view to curb sports fraud and corruption.

The Supreme Court in its decision taking into account the IPL Probe Committee report held
Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, Mr. Raj Kundra and their respective franchisees namely Chennai
Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals guilty of the aforesaid offences. However, the Supreme
Court instead of deciding the punishment set up another high powered committee 12 under the
Chairmanship of former Chief Justice Mr. R.M Lodha to decide on the quantum of
punishment to given to them.13

The R.M Lodha Committee Report banned both Mr. Raj Kundra as well as Mr. Gurunath
Meiyappan from participating in cricket matches or cricket related activities for life while the
franchisees (Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals) were suspended from the IPL
tournament for a period of 2 years. The Supreme Court also came up a number of directives
to cleanse the game of cricket from unscrupulous elements and also decreed that there should
be no conflict of interest in game of cricket by cricket administrators.

12
The other members of this Committee were Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India
and Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India.
13
See, Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 4235 of
2014, 22nd January 2015.

6|Page
 IV. FIXING IN SPORT: NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE
DEFINITION

Jacques Rogge, the then President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), explains
that, “Doping affects one individual athlete, but the impact of match-fixing affects the whole
competition. It is much bigger.” Illegal gambling is the principal driver of what he refers to as
a “cancer”.14 The biggest problem with respect to bringing action and accountability against
match-fixing is the lack of a comprehensive definition of the term ‘match-fixing’ or
‘manipulation of sports results’.

As per a report released by Sports Accord, the illegal gains from match-fixing represent up to
$8.8 billion, which is six times more than the global trade in illegal small arms. It is also
estimated that the volume of illegal betting and match-fixing in the Asian market alone to be
worth $500bn (£311bn). In India, illegal betting to the tune of hundreds of crores of rupees is
carried on during international and IPL cricket matches. 15 Moreover a large share of the
money involved in such sports corruption is channelized towards organised crime due to its
relatively high revenues and low sentences.

However only certain states have a definition of fraud and match fixing in criminal law,
which makes it possible for criminals to get away with minimum sentences in a majority of
the countries.16 This has time and again hampered the control of match-fixing and the
absence of a well laid out criminal justice mechanism against match-fixing is another reason
for the continuance of this menace.

Matching fixing is carried out in two fashions. Tanking is a method which requires contacts
between gamblers, bookkeepers, players, team officials etc. where the player intentionally
throws away the game at his hand by deliberately losing or not competing at all. The other
method is known as spot-fixing which involves fixing small events within a match which can
be gambled upon, but which are unlikely to prove decisive in determining the final result of

14
See, Kevin Carpenter, Match-Fixing — The Biggest Threat to Sport in the 21st Century? (accessed from:
http://www.interpol.int/Media/Files/INTERPOL-Expertise/IGLC/Match-fixing-biggest-threat).
15
See, The Justice Mudgal IPL Probe Committee Report, Involvement of the Underworld, Bookies and Players,
p. 49.
16
See, Emine Bozkurt, Match fixing and fraud in sport: Putting the pieces together (accessed from:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201209/20120925ATT52303/20120925ATT52303EN.
pdf).

7|Page
the game.17 The most prominent spot fixing scandal was the 2010 Pakistan spot fixing
scandal and the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal.

The French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs (IRIS) defines sporting corruption
as “any manipulation or attempted manipulation of a result or aspect of a game with the aim
of securing financial gains on the sports betting market”. Gorse & Chadwick adopt a broader
approach, defining sport corruption as “any illegal, immoral or unethical activity that
attempts to deliberately distort the result of a sporting contest (or any element of it) for the
personal material gain of one or more parties involved in that activity”.18

As per the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions 19,
“Manipulation of sports competitions” means an intentional arrangement, act or omission
aimed at an improper alteration of the result or the course of a sports competition in order to
remove all or part of the unpredictable nature of the aforementioned sports competition with
a view to obtaining an undue advantage for oneself or for others.20

The definition of match-fixing provided by the National Policy on Fixing in Sport (Australia)
is as follows: “Match-fixing involves the manipulation of an outcome or contingency by
competitors, teams, sports agents, support staff, referees and officials and venue staff. Such
conduct includes:
a. the deliberate fixing of the result of a contest, or of an occurrence within the contest, or of
a points spread;
b. deliberate underperformance;
c. withdrawal (tanking);
d. an official’s deliberate misapplication of the rules of the contest;
e. interference with the play or playing surfaces by venue staff; and
f. abuse of insider information to support a bet placed by any of the above or placed by a
gambler who has recruited such people to manipulate an outcome or contingency”.21

17
See, supra note 10.
18
See, supra note 11.
19
It should be noted that the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions is yet
to enter into force but has been signed by 20 countries and ratified by Norway.
20
See, Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, Art. 3(4) [CETS No.215]
(accessed from: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/215.htm).
21
See, National Policy on Match-Fixing in Sport, As agreed by Australian Governments on 10 June 2011, Art.
1.1 (accessed from: http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/dct/ffa-dtc-performgroup-eu-west-
1/National%20Policy%20on%20Match-Fixing%20in%20Sport_l6fs3rw9c67p1mel8nye77vb3.pdf).

8|Page
 V. FIXING IN SPORT: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

From an international perspective there is no international treaty based binding instrument as

such to prohibit and punish match-fixing and sports corruption. However, there are some
international conventions which are capable of implied application in certain cases. The most
prominent international legal instrument in this regard is the UN Convention against
Corruption (UNCAC) also known as the Merida Convention.22

The Convention defines active corruption as the promise, offering or giving, directly or
indirectly, of an undue advantage to any person who directs or works, in any capacity, for a
private sector entity, for the person himself or herself or for another person, in order that he
or she, in breach of his or her duties, act or refrain from acting.23

Passive corruption is defined as the solicitation or acceptance, directly or indirectly, of an

undue advantage by any person who directs or works, in any capacity, for a private sector
entity, for the person himself or herself or for another person, in order that he or she, in
breach of his or her duties, act or refrain from acting.24 Though these definitions are
adequate to cover cases of sports corruption the relevant provisions are not mandatory and
signatories of the Convention are obliged only to consider the establishment of the above
mentioned acts as criminal offences.

The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (2000) is also not
directly applicable to match-fixing because of its limited scope. Art. 8 of the Convention
requires parties to establish corruption as a criminal offence but refers only to public
corruption which again is not mandatory.

The Declaration of Berlin on Sports which was adopted at the 5th International Conference
on Ministers and Senior Officials responsible for Physical Education and Sports by UNESCO
member States deals with several aspects of preserving integrity in sport including prevention
of manipulation of sports competitions with a view to curb corruption and transnational
organised crime.25

22
It is to be noted that India has ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption in the year 2011.
23
See, United Nations Convention Against Corruption, Art. 21(a).
24
See, United Nations Convention Against Corruption, Art. 21(b).
25
See, MINEPS V SHS/2013/PI/H/8 REV, Declaration of Berlin, Specific Commitments and
Recommendations, 3.4 (accessed from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002211/221114e.pdf).

9|Page
 VI. LEGISLATIVE SCHEME RELATING TO SPORTS FRAUD IN
INDIA

The legislative enactments in India relating to gambling and the criminal law provisions are
grossly inadequate to deal with issues relating to match-fixing, leave alone sports fraud and
corruption. As on date there is no legislation which defines and punishes fixing in sports or
the manipulation of sports results. It is pertinent to discuss a few such enactments with a view
to analyse their applicability to sports fraud and corruption.

The Indian Penal Code forming an integral part of criminal justice deserves mention in this
regard. Section 415 of the IPC, 1860 defines ‘cheating’ as follows : “Whoever, by deceiving
any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not
do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property” and this provision is
frequently invoked to state that match-fixing is punishable under criminal law.26

However, a closer analysis of this section would reveal that the offence must be directed
against a specific person and it cannot be against the general public as such. The section also
requires transfer of property to take place between the accused and the victim. In match-
fixing, there is no clear transfer of property from the victim to the corrupt accused.27 Thus as
a natural corollary any reference to criminal conspiracy under section 120-A of the Indian
Penal Code is negated because match-fixing not being an offence under section 415 as there
is no provision which makes it illegal and hence the question of criminal conspiracy does not
arise.

The Public Gambling Act, 1867 the main objective of which is to illegalise gambling in India
forms the basis of applicability of gambling laws to match-fixing. This law makes operating
gambling house, assisting in the operation of a gambling house, visiting a gambling house

26
It is to noted that in the IPL Spot Fixing case also Section 420 (Punishment for cheating) read with section
120-B (Punishment for criminal conspiracy has been invoked. The Mumbai MCOCA Court however acquitted
all the cricketers involved in the case and held that there was lack of sufficient evidence to prove their guilt.
27
See, supra note 10.

10 | P a g e
(whether gambling or not), financing gambling and being in possession of gambling devices
a crime. The penalty is a fine not exceeding 200 rupees or up to three months in prison.28

However the Public Gambling Act, 1867 states that it shall not apply to games involving
mere skills.29 The Act does not define what a ‘game involving mere skill is’ and it has been
stated by the Supreme Court that the competitions where success depends on substantial
degree of skill are not “gambling” and despite there being an element of chance if a game is
predominantly a game of skill it would nevertheless be a game of “mere skill”.30

Accordingly Horse Racing and Rummy have also been defined as games of skill. 31 This
means that in the absence of other laws, gambling or wagering on games of skill is legal. Its
application to cricket which is a game of skill is also questionable. This archaic law relating
to gambling plays a very limited role in curbing the illegal gambling that is carried out
throughout the country. More importantly the fine and imprisonment provided therein is very
meagre considering the nature and the gravity of the offence.

The next question is whether sports fraud and corruption can be punished under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The primary motive of this Act is to curb bribery,
embezzlement and corruption in the public sector. For the provisions of this law to apply a
person has to be a public servant under section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 32
It is very much difficult to extend the definition of ‘public servants’ to include cricketers
because the Court has held that though the BCCI has certain public duties and functions it
cannot be ‘State’ for the purposes of Art, 12 of the Constitution of India.33

Thus none of the aforesaid laws can be resorted to punish the persons engaged in
manipulation of sports results in India. The application of the Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999 is also restricted given the requirement of higher
standard of proof and nexus with organised crime. The Payment and Settlement Act, 2007
and the Information Technology Act, 2000 also has a restricted scope in curbing sports fraud
as they give limited powers for control of cybercrime which is a different type of crime and
not sports corruption as such.

28
See, Section 3 & 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867.
29
See, Section 12 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867.
30
See, Dr. K.R. Lakshman v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1996 SCC (2) 226.
31
See, ibid.
32
As per section 3 a public servant as ‘any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or
required to perform any public duty’.
33
See, Zee telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 2677.

11 | P a g e
 VII. THE PREVENTION OF SPORTING FRAUD BILL, 2013

The legal system is hampered when it comes to establishing and punishing unethical activity
in sports, primarily owing to the dichotomous nature of laws under which erring individuals
or entities are prosecuted. The analysis of the existing laws show the absence of a well-
established criminal justice mechanism to prosecute and prevent sports fraud which has
affected efforts to maintain integrity in sport.

The reliance on Sports Governing Bodies (SGB) and their anti-corruption codes and units
which is not armed with wide investigatory powers and is not empowered to carry out arrests
is insufficient to combat corruption and fraud in sports. The BCCI Anti-Corruption Unit as
well as the ICC Anti-Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU) is a testament to this fact as they
failed play any role in the indictment of the players in IPL Spot Fixing case which raised
serious doubts as to its efficacy.

The draft of the Prevention of Sporting Fraud Bill, 2013 which has been made with the object
to preventing and combatting sporting fraud affecting the integrity of sports and fair play in
relation to national and international sporting events deserves mention in this regard. This bill
addresses the lacuna in the area of sports fraud by defining and punishing several aspects of
sporting fraud. The Prevention of Sporting Fraud Bill, 2013 comprehensively defines terms
such insider information34, members35, sporting fraud36, sporting event37, supporting
personnel38, etc.,

Section 3 defines sports fraud as follows: “A person is said to commit the offence of sporting
fraud in relation to a sporting event if he, directly or indirectly,-
(i) manipulates sports result, irrespective of whether the outcome is actually altered or not, or
makes arrangement of an irregular alteration of the field of play or the result of a sporting
event including its incidental events or deliberately misapplies the rules of the sport, in order
to obtain any economic or any other advantage or benefits or promise of an advantage or
benefits, for himself or for any other person so as to remove or reduce all or part of the
uncertainty normally associated with the results of a sporting event; or

34
See, Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Sporting Fraud Bill, 2013.
35
See, Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Sporting Fraud Bill, 2013.
36
See, Section 2(e) r/w Section 3 of the Prevention of Sporting Fraud Bill, 2013.
37
See, Section 2(f) of the Prevention of Sporting Fraud Bill, 2013.
38
See, Section 2(g) of the Prevention of Sporting Fraud Bill, 2013.

12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e
(ii) wilfully fails to perform to his true potential for economic or any other advantage or
benefit for himself or for any other person unless such under performance can be attributed to
strategic or tactical reason deployed in the interest of that sport or team; or
(iii) being in possession of inside information as a member, discloses such information to any
person before or during any sporting event with the knowledge that disclosure of such
information is likely to result in financial gain or is likely to be used in relation to betting or
manipulation of a sporting event; or
(iv) omits to perform the duty imposed on him under section 4.”

It also provides punishment for manipulation of sports results and deliberate

underperformance with imprisonment for five years and with fine of Rs. 10 Lakhs or five
times the economic advantage obtained from the sporting fraud whichever is greater. 39 The
punishment for leaking of insider information and failure to report the aforesaid offence is
also punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and with fine of rupees five lakhs or three
times the economic benefits derived by the person from sporting fraud whichever is greater.40

The attempt41 or abetment42 to commit any of the aforesaid offences is also same as the
punishment for the actual commission under the Prevention of Sporting Fraud Bill, 2013.
Section 8 deals with the offences relating to sports fraud by companies or association of
individuals and makes members of the company who are in charge of the conduct of
company personally liable for the offences. However if he proves that the offence was
committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence he is not made liable.

It also provides that if an aforesaid offence has been committed by a company and it is
proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is
attributable to any neglect on the part, of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of
the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be
guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

39
See, Section 5(a) of the Prevention of Sports Fraud Bill, 2013.
40
See, Section 5(b) of the Prevention of Sports Fraud Bill, 2013.
41
See, Section 6 of the Prevention of Sports Fraud Bill, 2013.
42
See, Section 7 of the Prevention of Sports Fraud Bill, 2013.

14 | P a g e
 VIII. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN CURBING SPORTS FRAUD

There is urgent need for the Parliament to pass the Prevention of Sports Fraud Bill, 2013
which will send a strong message to all the corrupt bookies, punters and sportsperson who
engage in sports fraud that punishment will be served to anyone who engages in this
unscrupulous practice. The existence of a strong criminal justice mechanism to punish sports
fraud in a sine qua non to maintain the integrity of the sport in our country.

The laws and regulations of every sport should provide for severe disciplinary action against
those who indulge in match-fixing or have any connection with any activity related to it. The
disciplinary action taken against members involved in sport who engage in fixing should act
as deterrent to others as well.

There should be Code of Conduct and Ethics which should be adopted and prescribed by all
sporting bodies to all its members and participants. There is also need to strengthen measures
to protect the witness who give evidence in case of sports fraud and corruption. There is a
need to ensure that they are protected and their rights are well safeguarded. The failure to
disclosure of such offences should also be made punishable under the Code of Conduct and
Ethics

There also a need to set up an independent supervisory body which prevents, supervises and
punishes all types of sports fraud. There should be integration between the various bodies
which engage in Anti-Corruption and anti-fixing measures so that those involving in sports
fraud can be quickly and efficiently brought to book.

A dedicated unit of the police force or the CBI has to be assigned to the task of detecting and
taking action against match-fixing and illegal betting associated with organised crime. The
amount of money spent towards anti-corruption should be substantially increased in all field
of sports and it should be fruitfully used in taking measures to combat sports fraud.

There is also a need to educate and train all stakeholder related to sports on the importance of
maintaining integrity in sport. Players in particular have to be taught importance of sports
integrity and how to identify and report sport fraud. The SGBs have to maintain a list of
undesirable elements like bookies, punters, fixers, etc., and ban all these individuals from
entering into sports stadiums and approaching players in particular.

15 | P a g e
 IX. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
Sport is now confronted with new threats and challenges which have emerged in modern
society, such as commercial pressure, exploitation of young players, doping, racism,
violence, corruption and money laundering. Corruption, money laundering and other forms of
financial crime are affecting sport at local, national and international levels. Given the
sector's high degree of internationalisation, corruption in the sport sector often has cross-
border aspects and most seriously affected its image.

Though the menace of match-fixing has been a phenomenon which has been prevalent for a
very long time in India irrespective of the sport precious little has been done about it
especially in the legal field. It is an established fact that match-fixing is linked with illegal
gambling and organised crime but unfortunately there is no penal statute in India as on date.

This linkage leads to dangerous repercussions as the money earned through illegal sports
betting and fixing is used to finance terror and other such organised crimes such as drug,
weapons and human trafficking which ultimately affects national security. The lack of a
coherent and comparable legal basis between countries makes cooperation in fighting crime
more difficult, in particular regarding the exchange of information between law enforcement
agencies. This is particularly relevant as match-fixing often has a transnational dimension.

Apart for this all the players, team officials and sports personnel should be ethically educated
and morally made aware that indulgence in match-fixing is against their moral code of
conduct. There must be a balance between morals, social values and the criminal law that has
to be enforced effectively to combat match-fixing. Without high morals infused with
effective legislation match-fixing cannot be curbed.

Thus remedying loopholes relating to law and enacting the pending sports fraud law which
requires concrete political is need of the hour. The passing of the law alone cannot totally
remedy the problem of sports corruption and fraud and there is a need for change in the
attitude and mentality of sportspersons as well as organisations which deal with these issue
for there being any substantial improvement in the existing conditions.

16 | P a g e
 X. BIBLIOGRAPHIES AND REFERENCES

1. India set to introduce Sports Fraud Bill to curb corruption, Rediff Cricket (accessed
from: http://www.rediff.com/cricket/report/india-set-to-introduce-sports-fraud-bill-to-
curb-corruption/20150730.html).

2. Vyoma Jha, Sports and Competition Law in India, A Critical Study with Reference to
Cricket (accessed from:
http://cci.gov.in/images/media/ResearchReports/sports_and_Competition_Law-
Final_20080715135912.pdf).

3. Shayan Dasgupta, Match Fixing: Threat to Indian Sport’s Integrity (accessed from:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2261311).

4. Match fixing: Mapping of Criminal Law Provisions in EU 27. March 2012. KEA
European Affairs (accessed from: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/studies/study-
sports-fraud-final-version_en.pdf).

5. Kevin Carpenter, Match-Fixing—The Biggest Threat to Sport in the 21st Century?

(accessed from: http://www.interpol.int/Media/Files/INTERPOL-
Expertise/IGLC/Match-fixing-biggest-threat).

6. Emine Bozkurt, Match fixing and fraud in sport: Putting the pieces together (accessed
from:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201209/20120925ATT52303
/20120925ATT52303EN.pdf).

7. Ante Z. Udovicic, Special Report: Sports and Gambling a Good Mix? I Wouldn't Bet
on It, Marquette Sports Law Review, 8 Marq. Sports L. J. 401 (1998) (accessed from:
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol8/iss2/10).

8. Law and Sports in India: Developments, Issues and Challenges, Mukul Mudgal,
LexisNexis, 2011.

17 | P a g e
 INTERNATIONAL LAW INSTRUMENTS, NATIONAL LAWS &
REPORTS REFERRED
1. Constitution of India, 1949.

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4. The Public Gambling Act, 1867.

5. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

6. The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

7. The Payment and Settlement Act, 2007.

8. The Information and Technology Act, 2000.

9. United Nations Convention against Corruption, 2005

10. United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime, 2003.

11. UNESCO Declaration of Berlin on Sports, 2013.

12. Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, 2014.

13. The Mudgal IPL Probe Committee Report.

14. The R.M Lodha Committee Report.

18 | P a g e