Will take strictest action against guilty players, says BCCI chief N Srinivasan
Shocked by the recently surfaced spot-fixing scandal, BCCI president N Srinivasan said the board will not hesitate in taking the strongest possible action against anyone who will be found guilty.
"[I'm] shocked and upset. [We] won't hesitate in taking strictest action. The IPL [Governing Council] has already suspended the three players. We will give full cooperation to the police," Srinivasan told reporters from Kodaikanal in a video conference.
Srinivasan also expressed his sadness, saying it happened despite the BCCI having an anti corruption cell. "What is shocking is that players are involved [despite] we having an Anti-corruption cell working. We have an Anti-Doping Code and Anti-Doping body in place yet this has happened," Srinivasan.
"We acted the moment we got the information. It is difficult to keep track of everyone. We will take this up with ICC as well."
The BCCI chief also rejected the argument that the players are being underpaid and that's the reason they are indulging in corrupt practices. "I don't think it is a case of players not having enough money. You can call it greed, not a question of inadequate compensation."
"We thought when we made an example last year [by banning five domestic cricketers involved in spot-fixing]. We thought the message was clear and people would not do anything like this. But we will continue with our efforts. The action that we take against these players would be sufficient deterrent," he added.
In a sensational development, Indian speedster S Sreesanth and two of his Rajasthan Royals team-mates were on Thursday arrested on charges of spot-fixing, throwing the cash-rich IPL into its biggest crisis till date.
A special cell of the Delhi police arrested Sreesanth and his team-mates - Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan - along with seven bookies last night after their team's IPL match against Mumbai Indians at the Wankhede stadium in Mumbai.
While Sreesanth was picked up in Delhi from his friend's residence, Chavan and Chandila were arrested from the team hotel at Nariman Point in Mumbai.
The cricketers and bookies had been charged under sections 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and brought to Delhi for further questioning.
Sanjay Dutt reaches TADA court in Mumbai
After he surrenders, Dutt is likely to be shifted to the Yerawada Jail in Pune, where he will serve the remaining part of his five -year-long jail term.
Actor Sanjay Dutt has finally reached the TADA court where he is slated to surrender.
The car cade carrying Dutt and some members of his family moved from the residence towards the court under strict security cover.
After he surrenders, Dutt is likely to be shifted to the Yerawada Jail in Pune, where he will serve the remaining part of his five -year-long jail term.
Dutt has been convicted in connection with the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case for possessing illegal weapons.
The actor is expected to be first sent to the Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai and then is expected to be shifted to Yerawada Jail in Pune. Authorities at the Arthur Road Jail received an anonymous letter yesterday stating that there is a threat to the actor's life in that prison.
On Tuesday, Dutt had pleaded in court that he be allowed to surrender directly at the Yerawada jail as he feared a threat to his life from fundamentalist groups. On Wednesday he withdrew his plea, without giving reasons.
On May 10, the Supreme Court had rejected Dutt's plea seeking review its March 21 judgement upholding his conviction under the Arms Act and sentencing him to five years in jail in the arms case, saying there is no merit in it.
The apex court, which had upheld the death sentence of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon, a key conspirator with Dawood Ibrahim in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, ordered that Dutt return to jail to serve three-and-a-half years sentence for possessing illegal arms.
A total of 257 persons were killed and 713 others injured when a series 13 coordinated explosions shattered the metropolis on March 12, 1993.
No arrest for posts on social sites without permission: SC
The Supreme Court on Thursday said that no person should be arrested for posting objectionable comments on social networking sites without taking prior permission from senior police officials.
The apex court, which refused to pass an order for a blanket ban on the arrest of a person for making objectionable comments on websites, said state governments should ensure strict compliance of the Centre’s January 9 advisory which said that a person should not be arrested without taking permission from senior police officials.
“We direct the state governments to ensure compliance with the guidelines (issued by Centre) before making any arrest,” a bench of justices B.S.Chauhan and Dipak Misra said.
It said the court cannot pass an order for banning all arrest in such cases as operation of section 66A (pertaining to objectionable comments) of the Information Technology Act has not been stayed by the apex court which is examining its constitutional validity.
In view of public outrage over people being arrested for making comments or liking posts on Facebook, Centre had on January 9 issued advisory to all states and UTs asking them not to arrest a person in such cases without prior approval of a senior police officer.
The advisory issued by the Centre says that, “State governments are advised that as regard to arrest of any person in complaint registered under section 66A of the Information Technology Act, the concerned police officer of a police station may not arrest any person until she/he has obtained prior approval of such arrest from an officer, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police (IGP) in metropolitan cities or of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) or Superintendent of Police (SP) at district level, as the case may be.”
The apex court was hearing an application seeking its direction to the authorities not to take action for posting objectionable comments during the pendency of a case before it pertaining to constitutional validity of section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act.
The section states that any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or communication device, any information that was grossly offensive or has a menacing character could be punished with imprisonment for a maximum term of three years, besides imposition of appropriate fine.
The petition was also filed regarding the arrest of a Hyderabad-based woman activist, who was sent to jail over her Facebook post in which certain “objectionable” comments were made against Tamil Nadu Governor K.Rosaiah and Congress MLA Amanchi Krishna Mohan. After filing of the petition, she was released by a district court at Hyderabad.
Jaya Vindhayal, the state general secretary of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), was arrested on May 12 under section 66A of the IT Act for the “objectionable” post.
According to the police, she had also allegedly distributed pamphlets making objectionable allegations against Rosaiah and Mohan before posting the comments online.
The matter was mentioned before the bench by law student Shreya Singhal, seeking an urgent hearing in the case, saying the police is taking action in such matters even though a PIL challenging validity of section 66A is pending before the apex court.
She had filed the PIL after two girls--Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan--were arrested in Palghar in Thane district under section 66A of IT Act after one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death and the other ‘liked’ it.
On November 30, 2012, the apex court had sought response from the Centre on the amendment and misuse of section 66A of IT Act and had also directed the Maharashtra government to explain the circumstances under which the 21-year-old girls were arrested.
Pursuant to the notice issued by the apex court, the Centre had informed it that the controversial provision in the cyber law under which two girls were arrested for Facebook comments did not curb freedom of speech and alleged “high handedness” of certain authorities did not mean that it was bad in law.
The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology in its affidavit had said that an advisory had been issued to all the state governments, saying that due diligence and care may be exercised while dealing with cases arising out of the alleged misuse of cyberspace.
The Maharashtra Government in its reply had said the arrests of girls in Thane district were “unwarranted” and “hasty”, which “cannot be justified“.
The state government had also submitted an affidavit stating that the Thane police SP (Rural) had been suspended for arresting the two girls despite the instruction by the IGP not to take such action.
The court had earlier issued notices and sought responses from governments of Delhi, West Bengal and Puducherry where a professor and a businessman were arrested under section 66A of the Act for a political cartoon and tweeting against a politician respectively.
More Articles...
Page 1 of 388
