In the recent ball-tampering case, decisions seem to have been taken based on emotions and not through reasoning. Ball tampering has been considered a minor infringement in the game of cricket for which mild punishment has been recommended: a ban for a few matches, forfeiting of match fee, etc.Incidents of ball tampering have been taking place since time immemorial and players have been booked for the same. In the present case too, the ICC acted fast and as per law, action was taken by the body. But it seems double jeopardy has been inflicted upon the three players as they were punished again by their cricket board over the same charges.
The known and accepted theory of natural justice has gone down the drain. It is doubtful whether a proper preliminary enquiry was done and whether the version of the players was considered before the one year/nine months bans were imposed. Also, the players were not given access to their lawyers. As such they were on foreign land. Within 50 to 70 hours these players were deprived of millions—their salaries! Also interestingly they were give time for their explanation much later and after the harsh decisions had been taken.
With regards to the moral responsibility aspect, the fact is that it is not recognised in law. (We are not sure whether the captain was aware of the plot; initial reports show he was not and it seems like initial reporting was genuine as with the passage of time, writers/commentators start adding their own view of point). The availability or absence of moral responsibility makes no difference in the court of law. Crime doers are responsible individually. The aspect of vicarious or joint responsibility does not hold any water in this case. Ponder over a situation. Suppose two players fight in a dressing room and one kills the other; the captain of that team though knows nothing about it but takes moral responsibility over the good conduct of the whole team and in this case for the murderer also; would the investigating agency make the captain also an accused? In the present case, the captain taking moral responsibility means nothing.
It is high time these players went to their Supreme Court of law. Let the concerned country’s Supreme Court decide whether double jeopardy had been committed and more importantly whether the internationally accepted law of natural justice was made available to the players. Also it is high time to see whether being merely morally responsible is also a crime.