Will Kerala speedster S Sreesanth actually be able to get back into cricket or not? That’s a question a lot of cricket fans have on their minds, even after Monday’s verdict from the Kerala High Court directed the Board of Control for Cricket in India to lift their life-ban on him. There are reports that the BCCI will challenge this decision in the courts so Sreesanth hasn’t got off scot-free...yet.
However, a full reading of the verdict from the Kerala HC throws up some significant observations. The court tore into the BCCI’s disciplinary committee’s provided reasons for banning him for life and stated that there was no clear evidence connecting Sreesanth to the crimes he was being accused of.
1. ‘Tortured to admit his guilt’
Much of Sreesanth’s perceived guilt lay in the fact that he had confessed to spot-fixing charges in police custody in May 2013. However, he later said that his confession was under duress. The court latched on to that explanation and while making the point that confessions made to police in custody were inadmissible in a court of law but not during disciplinary proceedings, took pains to explain why that was not a right action.
“The ‘confession’ of Sreesanth before the police officer while he was in custody, is explained by Sreesanth. It is his case that he was tortured to admit his guilt. Shri Sunil Shanker, learned counsel for the BCCI would argue that through such confession is inadmissible in a court of law, nevertheless, it can be relied upon in disciplinary proceedings. The law discards acceptance of confession made before the police while in custody not for any reason of involving technicality in admitting the same but for the reason that placing reliance to such confession is against the conscience of a civilized society. It is not an admission of any other aspects relating to the matter, in fact, it was an admission of the guilt of offence itself. The law envisages to exclude such evidence to a view to avoid malpractices of the police officers in extorting the confession from an accused person. Therefore, such confessions made before the police is against the very ethos of the civilized society governed by rule of law.”
2. ‘Inquiry officer did not have any access to Sreesanth’
The BCCI had received an inquiry report before starting their disciplinary proceedings against the Kerala pacer, saying there was evidence against Sreesanth to prove his guilt...except as the court points out, the officer who was making the report did not even have access to Sreesanth.
“Before initiating disciplinary proceedings against Sreesanth, an inquiry report was submitted by Shri. R.N. Sawani IPS (retd) before the BCCI. The inquiry was constituted as noted earlier, as pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a PIL filed by Sudarsha Awasthi. The inquiry report mentions there is sufficient evidence against Sreesanth to prove his guilt. However, it was reported that the inquiry officer did not have any access to Sreesanth, as he was in custody, to corroborate or contradict the evidence collected by him.”
3. ‘No direct involvement’
This part is self-explanatory. A large part of Sreesanth’s admission of guilt lay in a telephonic conversation he had with his friend and suspected bookie Jiju Janardhan where the latter allegedly agreed to pay him Rs 7 lakh for spot-fixing. But the Kerala HC blows that line of reasoning out of the water (emphasis ours):
“It is to be noted that the disciplinary committee had never chosen to confront Sreesanth with the transcription of the conversation recorded especially when the conversation as such did not disclose the direct involvement of Sreesanth in sport fixing or betting.
4. ‘No incriminating evidence’
Continuing on the same theme, the court tries to reason that it was not possible for Sreesanth to hold on to the alleged sum of money and blamed the BCCI for using the conversation “selectively”.
“It is to be noted that there are no incriminating evidence to pinpoint Sreesanth’s involvement in spot-fixing deal. Having considered the nature of the deal made between Jiju Janardhan and Chandresh Patel, money could not have been retained with Jiju Janardhan. Therefore, it is clear something would have transpired between Chandresh Patel and Jiju Janardhan after the match. It is impossible in such circumstances for Sreesanth and Jiju Janardhan to retain Rs 5.5 lakhs. The BCCI referred to the conversation, selectively, as against Sreesanth”
5. Sreesanth can’t be fully absolved
The judgement ensures that Sreesanth can’t be completely absolved. He is criticised for not disassociating himself with Janardhan after the news of spot-fixing broke and for showing “complacency”
“It is equally important to note that Sreesanth never attempted to disassociate himself with Jiju Janardhan after the sport fixing scandal broke out in the news. As adverted earlier, Jiju Janardhan had an active role in sport fixing and betting. Sreesanth’s role is ruled out because there is nothing to connect him. However, Sreesanth having come to know that his own close friend had dragged his name into betting scandal and sport fixing, he should have publicly taken exception to the conduct of Jiju Janardhan.
In fact, the impassive conduct of Sreesanth made suspicious about his role and to conclude by the disciplinary committee that circumstantial evidence fingers a point (sic) to him. Complacency in the matter on the part of Sreesanth is really condemnable. To uphold the dignity of the game, he should have publicly disapproved the conduct of Jiju Janardhan, especially when his name was dragged into controversy”
6. ‘Wheat from the chaff’
Under-stated but plenty of impact. The court is quick to tell the BCCI that they are not being questioned on their need to clean the game but criticised because of doing it “overzealously”. The verdict also provides a reminder that for the entire world, while it is just another case, for the player itself, it is a question of his career.
“The BCCI in its earnest efforts to extinguish such bad elements should have separated the wheat from the chaff. The BCCI’s efforts to weed out corruption and to uphold the dignity of the game while need to be emphasised but that should not be in a way of overzealously reacting to it. It must be remembered in every disciplinary action related to a player of national repute, the player suffers his repute and confidence which he built through hardwork”
(The full verdict can be read here)