Hindi abuses can provide much-needed relief as in Harbhajan Singh’s case. Justice John Hansen of New Zealand who decided Bhajji’s appeal ruled that Harbhajan said “teri maa ki”, to Andrew Symonds in Sydney and not “monkey” and because Harbhajan was speaking his “native tongue” there was a possibility that what he said was misinterpreted. A classic instance of miscommunication. In the result Harbhajan was given benefit of doubt and a lighter penalty of fine of 50 per cent of his match fee was imposed because admittedly he had used “some” bad words in retaliation to “some” provocation from Symonds.

Justice Hansen’s verdict has provoked angry reaction in Australia because it is felt that Harbhajan got off lightly and BCCI’s money power and economic clout coupled with its threat to abandon the remaining matches influenced Hansen’s decision. The latter criticism is unfair and has been repudiated by the judge who has denied that any influence was brought on him. The case was decided on the basis of the agreed statement of facts and the evidence presented which did not satisfy the requisite high standard to warrant a violation under level 3.3 of the ICC Code. Interestingly Justice Hansen was of the view that even if the word “monkey” were used, it would not amount to a racial slur in view of the overall context and surrounding circumstances.

Significantly, Justice Hansen pointed out that at the time of the appeal hearing he had been made aware only of one previous infringement of the ICC code by Bhajji in April 2003. Subsequently, he learned about three other violations in 1998, November 2001 and November 2005 and said that could have led to a different penalty. Who in ICC is responsible for keeping Justice Hansen in the dark about these material facts? After his verdict the judge studied the ICC Code to ascertain whether he could reopen the sentencing process but found that could not be done.

... contd.