The Hindu : Sport : Investigating cricket misconduct

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jan 08, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Sport

Sport

Investigating cricket misconduct

R.K. Raghavan

It will be wise to refer the facts to a special panel
Such a panel can invoke the assistance of ace investigators

The happenings at the Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG) during the past few days raise several contentious issues, chief of which is the action against Harbhajan Singh for his alleged racist remarks aimed at Andrew Symonds. Public passions in India have naturally been ignited by the three-Test ban imposed on the off-spinner who seems to wear a short fuse.

If the ban had come under normal circumstances, it may not have excited half the intensity that is now on display in different parts of India. Coming against the backdrop of some atrocious umpiring decisions which definitely affected India’s fortunes at Sydney, the disciplinary action has got mixed up with the quality of umpiring that was on view.

The ICC panel headed by Mike Procter has indicted Harbhajan for his remarks against Symonds, and on that basis, the ICC has imposed the ban on him. Harbhajan and his colleagues are incensed over this, and the BCCI has rightly backed the cricketer to the hilt.

All of us in India would like to know what kind of evidence came up during the midnight enquiry that was held to look into the charge of Harbhajan’s misconduct.

In criminal law we have what is known as the ‘conclusive proof’ standards required to punish an offender in court. As against this, a mere ‘preponderance of probabilities’ is the yardstick that governs non-judicial proceedings like a domestic enquiry. I would be curious to know what standards were applied to the present case.

Heated exchange

The video clippings of the conversation between Symonds and Harbhajan indicate that some hot words were exchanged. I wonder whether these were picked up by the microphone near the wickets. If they did not, what was the basis for imposing such a severe penalty? This is the issue that should bother most of us.

Also relevant is the provocation which triggered Harbhajan’s outburst. Again in criminal law, sudden and grave provocation is an extenuating factor that goes in favour of the accused. Was this consideration shown to Harbhajan at all?

We initially believed that the controversy could hardly be resolved because it was a question of one man’s word against the other.

If Harbhajan’s conviction was based on the greater credibility of Symonds’s version of the incident, it is grossly unfair to him and a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, even conceding that Harbhajan was not facing a judicial enquiry.

Appeal against ban

The BCCI has appealed against the ban. It has enough clout to demand all the facts that emerged during Procter’s inquiry so that the appeal is meaningful and has a chance of success.

A blind appeal for the sake of protecting Harbhajan will not pass muster. I am sure some top legal minds have been invoked for the purpose.

This brings me to the general issue of how to conduct unbiased inquiries whenever the misconduct of a cricketer on the field has to be investigated. I do not think an ICC Panel will do, because of the known biases that operate between nations. Already there is the charge that all of Procter’s inquiries in the past had gone against India.

I strongly believe that a judicial mind is superior to a cricketer’s on such occasions. In a case like the Harbhajan-Symonds row, it will be wise to refer the facts to a special panel comprising former judges drawn from various cricket-playing nations with or without knowledge of cricket.

Only such a panel will have a semblance of objectivity which is the need of the hour. Such a panel can always invoke the assistance of ace investigators, a few of whom are already part of the ICC staff.

Transparency required

Even this will not succeed unless the ICC displays utter transparency. The people in different countries who pay to watch cricket have a right to demand that all relevant facts should be shared with them.

I cannot but recall how the CBI adopted an unusual procedure of placing on the Internet its whole report to the Union Sports Ministry on the match-fixing allegation.

If a law enforcement agency could do this without any inhibition, why cannot a cricket body such as the ICC do likewise?

(The writer is a former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Sport