NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
HOT LINKS
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
BOOKS & THINGS
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

Sound and fury, signifying nothing

So the Board of Control for Cricket in India has appointed former chief justice Y V Chandrachud as a one-man inquiry committee to probe allegations of betting, bribery and match fixing.

How nice.

Outgoing BCCI secretary Jagmohan Dalmiya has gone on record that Justice Chandrachud will have wide powers to conduct the inquiry, and will be at liberty to call any board official, team official, cricketer or journalist for questioning, as deemed necessary.

Even nicer.

Sounds good on the face of it. Then you begin to think, and wonder under which constitutional authority the BCCI decided to ask the eminent jurist to conduct such in inquiry.

What right does the BCCI have to summon any individual to face the committee? The committee can, at the most call any of the present cricketers and officials, since they are contracted to the Board. But how can the BCCI, or Justice Chandrachud, summon a former cricketer or even a journalist, given that neither of them would be under any obligation to respond?

Justice Chandrachud has, in fact, indicated that he would be helpless if and when someone he wants to speak to in pursuit of his inquiries refuses to co-operate.

Am I saying that the BCCI is wrong to appoint such a committee? No. What I am saying is that the committee, as appointed, is a toothless one. Dalmiya knows that as well as you and I. And therefore, I can't help but suspect that this move is just to placate the public, and give the impression that something is being done.

If the BCCI was indeed concerned about the allegations, they should gave taken legal recourse, and requested the courts of the land to appoint an independent committee in the public interest.

If that had been done, if the court in turn had appointed a committee, then that body would have been able to summon anybody at all. Most importantly, such a court-appointed committee would have the power to summon bookies and their middlemen -- people who may not respond to a Justice Chandrachud's summons.

Again, look at the case of Manoj Prabhakar, who set the whole thing rolling when he accused an unnamed Indian cricketer of having offered him Rs 2.5 million to tank a match. Why on earth would Prabhakar respond to Justice Chandrachud's summons? Or assuming he did turn up before the judge, why would Prabhakar deign to name names? In fact, Prabhakar has already informed the Board that "No useful purpose will be served by my stating any more facts, especially because it would be impossible for me to prove that the incident had occurred."

So, it follows that if Justice Chandrachud summons the former all-rounder, chances are he won't talk. And why should he, when he knows that the judge in any event is powerless to take action on any revelations he makes?

However, if the committee had been appointed by a court, Prabhakar would then have been compelled to name names, because failing to do so is tantamount to contempt of court. And therein lies the difference between an official committee, and the ad hoc one that has now been set up. And Dalmiya knows this as well as you and I do.

So why did Dalmiya appoint an unofficial committee, and not an official one? You tell me.

Interestingly, Dalmiya while briefing the media also said that he would take appropriate action against those responsible for spreading such "malicious and motivated aspersions with a view to tarnishing the image of Indian cricket".

In the first place, the statement presumes that the statement is malicious and motivated, and not based in truth -- which seems to undercut the inquiry right there.

More to the point, I would love to know what action Dalmiya thinks he can take against a retired cricketer, or a journalist, or a bookie. Will someone explain that one to me?