Is Match-Fixing A Criminal Offence? Supreme Court To Consider

The Supreme Court is set to consider the issue as to whether match-fixing constitutes a criminal offense.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh yesterday heard a matter involving the issue and considering the ramifications of betting as well as match-fixing, appointed Advocate Shivam Singh as an Amicus Curiae.

The case has been fixed for hearing on July 27.

Reportedly, a few years ago, Karnataka police filed a chargesheet under Section 420 IPC against Indian Premier League players CM Gautam (Deccan Chargers and Mumbai Indians; former Ranji captain of Karnataka) and Abrar Kazi (Royal Challengers Bengaluru, Ranji Karnataka and Mizoram) over alleged involvement in match-fixing during Karnataka Premier League 2019. As per allegations, both players received Rs.20 lakhs from bookies to bat slowly during the finals, which led the opposite team-Hubli Tigers to win by 8 runs.

However, the proceedings were quashed by the High Court on the ground that match-fixing did not constitute the offense of cheating, and if warranted, BCCI could take a disciplinary action. It was noted that for invoking offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients to be present are deception, 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. The match fixing may indicate dishonesty, indiscipline and mental corruption of a player and for this purpose the BCCI is the authority to initiate disciplinary action. If the bye-laws of the BCCI provide for initiation of disciplinary action against a player, such an action is permitted but, registration of an FIR on the ground that a crime punishable under section 420 IPC has been committed, is not permitted. Even if the entire charge sheet averments are taken to be true on their face value, they do not constitute an offence", the High Court observed.

Challenging the High Court decision, Karnataka government approached the Supreme Court.

Appearance: AoR DL Chidananda (for Karnataka government); ASG KM Nataraj (for Union); Advocates Sharath Nambiar, Praneet Pranav, Satvika Thakur, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Ananga Bhattacharyya, Krishanu Barua, Devahuti Tamuli, Sandhya Gupta, Varchaswa Singh, Drishti Gupta and Shivam Sharma; AoRs Arvind Kumar Sharma, M/s Veritas Legis, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi and Bhargava V Desai

Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. Versus ABRAR KAZI AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 9408-9411/2022

Click here to read the order