The Board of Cricket for Control in India is not living up to its name. So feels the Supreme Court in India, the highest court of the land, and they have taken several measures to deal with it. The Indian cricket body is currently involved in a bitter battle with the judiciary over the implementation of the SC-constituted Justice Lodha Committee’s recommendations. An end does not seem to be in sight, any time soon.

There are likely to be more heated battles in the saga. An essential reason for the court’s decision to engage with the BCCI is because of the public interest attached to cricket.

To put matters in perspective, it would be worth noting down how such matters are meted out in the United States of America, England, China and Pakistan.

United States

In August this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit , in a panel ruling, voted against the implementation of sports betting in the state of New Jersey. In doing so it upheld the Protection and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 which bans sports betting in most forms and in most states.

Certain states enjoy exemptions, as do certain sports. That still did not prevent New Jersey from trying to carve an exception for it. Before the August ruling, there had been an en banc (in bench) session in which 12 judges heard arguments. Now, there will be a vacating of the ruling so that there can be a rehearing.

The involved parties in the case are the four big North American sporting leagues-the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League and the Major League Basketball, along with the National Collegiate Association and the United States Department of Justice. Multiple sporting and legal bodies have come together to pursue a common interest.

Another high-profile case of a similar nature demonstrated that legal options could not always be taken for granted. In the long-running “Deflategate” affair, New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was suspended by the NFL for his alleged part in tampering with the footballs used in a American Football Conference Championship Game . Brady’s suspension was first vacated by Judge Berman but was then reinstated by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals who also denied his request for a rehearing.

England

The most famous court case in England, involving sports, in recent times was the one concerning the spot-fixing scandal of 2010.

Pakistani cricketers Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir were convicted by a British court and served jail time after they were convicted of taking bribes to deliberately under-perform.

This came after they had already faced sanctions from the International Cricket Council for their misdeeds. There was a huge debate about whether they should face legal action on top of their playing bans but the courts found sufficient ground in declaring their acts criminal and punishable.

The fact that the crime had happened on British territory made it easier to take in the fact that Pakistani cricketers were subject to the British judiciary. There was scope for clemency, the same concession granted to others under the ambit of the courts. Amir has started playing international cricket again. The others could do so soon.

In India, before the BCCI’s recent battles with the Supreme Court, the biggest disputes in the legal channels arose over its own Indian Premier League spot-fixing scandal. The BCCI banned Sreesanth, Ajit Chandila and Ankit Chavan , whose arrests had started the uncorking of the cookie jar, for life, but a Delhi trial court dropped charges against them due to “insufficient evidence”.

China

Not a lot of information is available about judicial procedure with regard to sporting matters in China. Corruption has been a raging issue in Chinese football with two former presidents of the Chinese Football Association sent to jail for more than ten years in 2012 with their personal assets stripped.

There were allegations of torture but the court seemed to echo the sentiments of the public outcry over the raging allegations of corruption. A former international referee and several international players have been imprisoned as well as slapped with heavy fines. All these measures seemed apt for a country which does not appear to have a fixed legal mechanism for meting out justice.

But under the traces of information fed to the international media, China does appear to be severe in handling corruption in its sports.

Pakistan

Apart from the sanctions he received from the International Cricket Council and the English judiciary system, Pakistan’s Mohammad Amir also had to get a clearance from the Lahore High Court to resume playing when there was a petition filed against his return to international cricket.

The legal system in Pakistan seems to have a similar pull to that of its Indian contemporary although the latter is not as trenchant yet in its reach. In 2013, the Islamabad High Court ruled against Najam Sethi, who was the interim chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board at that time, cancelling all his decisions and removing Moin Khan as a chief selector. The court asked for “a keen follower of the game” from the public to be included into the selection panel. It is amusing to imagine such a situation unfolding in India.

It will take a while though for the legal picture in India to be clearer, to see whether India can have an example of its own to showcase to its other contemporary sporting and legal bodies. There are disputes currently under sub judice involving many other sports in India, but because of the national importance tag attached to cricket, this could be the real reckoning.