45 Minutes With Chandrachud

To keep my appointment I visited Hotel Taj Palace, Delhi, on the evening of July 7 with my advocate Nidhesh Gupta. On arrival at the hotel, I was surprised to see a huge media gathering, who had obviously been tipped off in advance. I was surprised because I thought that the two questions which had been posed to me in the letter could have done without this kind of media attention. Walking through the maze of photographers and journalists, I finally arrived at the business centre in the Taj and had the honour of meeting Mr Chandrachud. After shaking hands and exchanging pleasantries, he asked me if I could do without my lawyer, to which I refused, saying Mr Chandrachud had given statements to the press that he still had a lawyer in him and that in spite of having left the legal profession for some time, he still had the qualities of a lawyer about him and would be able to get the truth out of me. In any case the justice too was accompanied by a BCCI lawyer, Mr Banerjee.

As we sat down and ordered beverages, Mr Chandrachud immediately requested me for my autograph on two autograph books for his grandchildren, saying that he had been requested by his grandchildren to collect them. I readily obliged and signed the two autograph books. Thereafter, he enquired about my abilities to bowl inswing and how I was able to swing the ball the way I used to and what factors were responsible for me being able to swing the ball as much I was able to. I explained to him as I would to a layman and was pleasantly surprised to note his interest in the game and in the art of swing bowling.

After spending 15 minutes on the above subject, we were disturbed by several journalists who wanted to know whether they could be present during the hearing. They said they would keep quiet and not disturb us. At this Mr Banerjee requested the media persons to go out of the meeting room and requested the authorities at Taj Hotel to ensure that no one came in. After barely a few minutes had passed, several executives of the Taj Hotel walked in and stated that the huge media presence had completely disrupted the goings-on in the other business meeting rooms and that they had requested the media to leave the business room area and wait outside. After much persuasion the media left the business room and waited outside.

The whole process took approximately 30 minutes, following which Mr Chandrachud finally came to the two questions that he had posed to me. He asked me whether international cricket matches played by Indian teams are fixed? I responded by showing him a news article that had appeared on the front page of the Delhi edition of

The Times of India dated July 5, 1997, wherein some details regarding the player-bookie nexus as given by a former policemen were mentioned.I stated that the volume of evidence being given by a large number of persons does lead one to make one’s own judgement as to the answer to the two questions.

Thereafter Mr Chandrachud read through my article that had appeared in Outlook . I requested Mr Chandrachud to see video clippings pertaining to the news items that had appeared in Outlook and stated that his examination of the said videos would itself prove the accuracy of the contents of the said articles. Thus ended my 45-minute meeting with Mr Chandrachud, pursuant to which we shook hands, exchanged pleasantries and parted. Before parting Mr Chandrachud took an assurance from me that I would see him again, should he request me to do so, to which I agreed. This is the sum and substance of our entire conversation and nothing material beyond the above was discussed by us.

Next morning, when I woke up, I was not surprised to see the coverage which had been given by the media to our meeting (considering the huge presence of presspersons outside the hotel), but I was surprised to note that Mr Chandrachud had in an interview stated that I had been allowed to take my lawyer with me since I could not speak English. I immediately rang him up and asked why he had made that statement, to which he replied that he had not made that statement and had been wrongly quoted and that he would issue a clarification at his next meeting. The clarification never came. If I had a language problem I would have taken a JNU professor of English with me, not a lawyer.

In view of the above, I was surprised to read press reports reproducing parts of the 94-page report submitted by Mr Chandrachud. The report deals with the articles written by me in

Outlook in the following way:
(A) I had said in the Outlook issue dated June 11, 1997: "I distinctly remember that match at Sharjah when I was at the crease with Sanjay Manjrekar and under deteriorating light conditions we decided to walk off. However, to our surprise we received the signal from the team management to play on."

With regard to the above, the findings of Mr Chandrachud are as follows: "The incident mentioned in clause (a) above is falsified by the statement of Sanjay Manjrekar which I accept as true. He says that the match at Sharjah against Pakistan in October 1991 started late. He and Manoj Prabhakar were on the right path when the umpire said that the light was bad. There was only a brief stoppage in the game, Manjrekar has stated categorically that he and Manoj Prabhakar did not go back to the pavilion and the statement made by Manoj Prabhakar is wholly untrue. Manjrekar’s statement accords with the probabilities of the case."

 Insofar as the above findings are concerned, I say that it was never said by me that we had gone back to the pavilion. I had only said that I was at the crease with Manjrekar under deteriorating light conditions, when we decided to walk off. We had received a "signal from the team management to play on", is what I had said. I have never said that we had reached the pavilion and we were told by the management to go back. What I have said is that we had received a signal from the team management, a fact which even today can be confirmed from videos.

With regard to the above, I had further stated in my column: "Unfortunately, in such conditions where monkey deals are made in the dark and proof is available, we can only shake our heads in disbelief. More surprising is that I have noticed that such dealings seemed to be manipulated right from the top and players who had reached the pinnacle of cricket did not seem to be doing the right thing at crucial times." In the news article that had appeared in the press, nothing has been said about any findings having been reached by Mr Chandrachud regarding the above.

(C) "Somewhere in the same period I was also approached by certain quarters to perform below par in a certain match."
"Before the India-Pakistan match in Sri Lanka for the Singer Cup in 1994, I was offered Rs 25 lakh by an Indian team member for sabotaging the match in Pakistan’s favour. I was told to play below my usual standard. I told him to get out of my room. I told him that I would never do what he was telling me to do. Because of this, I soon acquired a tag of spoilsport in that group. This did not stop the offers though, which flowed in regularly."

Regarding (C) and (D), the following findings have been recorded by Mr Chandrachud: "The incidents mentioned in clauses (c) and (d) above are couched in a language which is beautifully vague. The incident mentioned in clause (c) speaks of "certain quarters" having approached Manoj Prabhakar "somewhere" with a request that he should perform below par in a "certain match". The incident mentioned in clause (d) speaks of Rs 25 lakh being offered to Manoj Prabhakar by an "Indian team member" for sabotaging the match in favour of Pakistan. He says he spurned the offer, but that did not stop the offers which flowed in regularly.

"Surely, if an Indian team member approached Manoj Prabhakar with such a highly objectionable offer, the first thing which should have occurred to him was to report the matter forthwith to the manager or the coach or the captain or the vice-captain or any other member of the team in whom he had confidence. He did nothing of the kind. The fundamental objection of Manoj to disclosing the names of the persons who offered him bribes or asked him to play below his form is that such a disclosure will spell danger to his life. He said in his statement before me that he was warned that his life will be in danger if he disclosed the names. I pleaded with him that he may disclose the names to me in confidence and that I will not mention those names in my report, much less that he had disclosed those names to me. Faced with the situation, he changed stance, an adroit player that he is, and said that he is afraid that he will be sued or prosecuted if he disclosed the names."

 Regarding the above findings I say that, firstly, the only two questions he had posed to me (which are obvious from a letter dated July 3, 1997, which thankfully I have kept in my possession) are the two questions mentioned above. The said letter itself makes it clear that the name of the player who had offered me the said Rs 25 lakh was never asked from me. I was never asked about the same during our 45-minute meeting also, a description of which I have already given. In any case, I say that I could not have disclosed the names because of two reasons, viz that I had been issued threats at gun point should I disclose the names. I gave details regarding these threats in a letter dated June 12, 1997, addressed to Shri T.R. Kakkar, the commissioner of Delhi Police. After my having written the said letter dated June 12, 1977, to Shri T.R. Kakkar, the same was duly registered by the Delhi Police. The events, especially the intimation in writing of the threats received by me to the Delhi Police approximately three weeks before I received any letter from Shri Chandrachud itself proves the veracity of the above facts.

My second reason for not disclosing the name was in accordance with the advice tendered to me by my lawyer, wherein I had been told that should I make a statement against any person, which I may not be able to prove in a court of law, the same may result in defamatory suits being instituted against me, in which the onus of proving the allegations would be on me. Since I did not have sufficient proof of what had happened I was rightly advised by Mr Nidhesh Gupta, my advocate, not to disclose the names. I reiterate even today that should the two concerns voiced by me above be taken care of and assurances with regard to the same be given to me, I shall disclose everything.

(E) Thereafter I had written: "There are times that things are so obvious, the entire nation has watched it happen. In Kanpur, when we were chasing the West Indies score, Mongia came in to bat and conveyed the management’s instructions to try and get close to the target without losing wickets. The resultant hullabaloo about my going slow should be directed at the team management and not me as I was doing so under their instructions. In fact, due to someone else’s fault, I was dropped and humiliated."

The findings given by Mr Chandrachud are as follows: "The incident mentioned in clause (e) refers to a match against the West Indies. Even here Manoj never complained that he was victimised for carrying out the instructions of the management. Nayan Mongia has said in his statement that he has never experienced the fixing of a match as a member of the Indian team. In fact, he says it is ‘crazy’ that any player will make an attempt to lose a match."

With regard to the above I say that what had been stated by me was that when we were chasing the West Indian score, I was conveyed by Nayan Mongia the instructions of the management to try and get close to the target. The instructions conveyed that we should not get out and we should get as close to the target as possible without getting out. Mr Chandrachud’s findings are that Mongia has said in a statement that he had never experienced the fixing of a match as a member of the Indian team  and that it is ‘crazy’ that any player will make an attempt to lose a match. I had only said that I had been conveyed the above instruction of the management through Mongia. The report does not state that Mongia has denied that the said instructions were conveyed to me. The facts contained in (e) have not been denied by Mongia.

It may also be pointed out that out of 11 balls faced by me in this match I had scored nine runs during the time when Mongia and I were at the crease. So the hullabaloo raised against me for going slow was in any case totally misdirected.

(F) I had stated in my column: "Commercialisation of cricket has changed its face—it’s no longer just a game. It is a game where money is the main motivator. Sponsors and bookies have started exerting pressure and games are now being increasingly fixed."

With regard to the above no findings of Mr Chandrachud have been given. I say this since the copy of the report has not been given to me and what I say is based on newspaper reports wherein excerpts from Mr Chandrachud’s report have been quoted.

(G) Thereafter I am further quoted: "I remember the incident at Sharjah, when Aamir Sohail and Azhar went out to toss and both came back claiming that the other had won it. " With regard to the above, Mr Chandrachud’s finding is: "The incident mentioned in clause (g) shows Manoj’s total unconcern for truth.Aamir Sohail and Azhar were never captains of the teams at the same time or in any match whatsoever. They never tossed together. Azhar tossed with Imran Khan, Wasim Akram and Moin Khan, but never with Aamir Sohail. Apart from that, it is puerile for seasoned campaigners like Sohail and Azhar to proclaim within the seeing of a couple of commentators that the other had won the toss. Now, of course, the referee is present at the toss, but all along a couple of commentators have always been present at an arm’s length.

"The allegation made by Manoj in this clause is so completely concocted that it deserves no further attention except that the allegation shows that Manoj has no regard for truth whatsoever. In his zeal for involving Azhar, Manoj overlooked that managers, coaches and members of the two teams would not have been silent spectators to such absurd claims made by their respective captains." I say that the record would prove that what I have said is correct and the findings recorded by Mr Chandrachud are wrong. It is a matter of record that Aamir Sohail and Azhar have tossed together. At Sharjah they tossed twice. On April 12 and on April 15, 1996. This can be easily verified.

As stated by me earlier, the parts of the report quoted above have been quoted on the basis of news articles which have appeared, in particular, a news article appearing in

The Hindu. Unfortunately a copy of the entire report has not been given to me. So I am unable to say anything more. I may only add that Mr Chandrachud himself had issued a statement to the press and on Star TV which was widely reported wherein he had said, "Evidence has been laid by many persons, statements have been made before me by many persons on the question of match-fixing but, well, it is very difficult for anyone to say that this particular player or that particular player was responsible. As everyone has been saying that after all match-fixing is not all that easy." When asked whether he thought that matches were being fixed or was it just a case of heavy betting going on, he replied: "I can tell you that different people have expressed different views on match-fixing and the preponderance of the view is that it is not easy to fix a match." Of course, it’s not easy, and I have never said it’s easy.

Justice Chandrachud also said: "I have talked to very high officers in the Bombay Police and they have told me that it is very difficult to fix responsibility on a particular player or to point an accusing finger at any particular player and say that, well, he is betting. And do you think, you know, that players would be so simple that they would be paid in their own name?" In saying so, Mr Chandrachud was perhaps referring to the statements made by Mr Sunil Dev, manager of the Indian team for the South Africa tour, wherein he categorically stated that he was "fairly certain that members of the team do lay a bet and one can only bet to lose. It is easy to get run out or hit a lofted shot. Coaches can detect the deliberate under-performance and so can students of the game. We may have lost some matches because some of our players lay bets to lose." He may also perhaps have been referring to other similar evidence which may have been received by him during the course of the inquiry. The above statements issued by Mr Chandrachud are not far from what I have been saying all along. Perhaps, some evidence lies in the rest of the report which the BCCI has obviously not released to the press.