By Tehelka Bureau
At the Arun Jaitley Stadium in Delhi, the lights are off after the third season of the Delhi Premier League (DPL). Celebrations have given way to a sombre mood, while those suspected of facilitating wrongdoing are seeking legal advice.
Within a week of Tehelka’s exposé on alleged match fixing, Rachit Bhatia, the central figure in its sting, has reportedly gone underground. Fellow players are said to have blocked his number.
The Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA), meanwhile, has huddled with its in-house legal counsel and engaged a new PR agency. Its apparent aim is to deflect blame towards someone associated with Nagaland’s Ranji team, or towards a former CSK player drawn into the controversy.
Scratch beneath the surface and the rot in cricket begins to show.
The BCCI has reportedly begun an inquiry into the allegations involving Bhatia, a former Ranji player from Nagaland. His mobile phone remains switched off.
DDCA, however, points to the presence of an observer or anti-corruption officer at matches. The official arrives five hours before play and stays until the players board the bus back to their hotel. But that leaves a larger question: how does the system operate around these safeguards?
Vansh Bedi and the allegation
Vansh Bedi, a Delhi wicketkeeper-batter who played for Central Delhi Kings in the 2026 DPL, also had a brief spell with Chennai Super Kings in 2025 before an injury replacement.
His name entered the debate because Rachit Bhatia, while speaking in Tehelka’s sting, claimed that an unnamed CSK-linked player could supply inside team information and that he had manipulated IPL matches. Tehelka did not identify Bedi as that player. The link to him arose in subsequent speculation, which he has publicly rejected.
Bedi said he was not the player Bhatia referred to and denied any involvement in match fixing or leaking information. Separately, a senior DDCA official told a news agency that Bedi had reported a corrupt approach during the DPL to the league’s Anti-Corruption Unit. Bedi, however, has clarified that the approach he reported was not from Bhatia.
DDCA, meanwhile, said it had informed the BCCI and sought guidance, while stressing that allegations circulating about players and a franchise had not been established. On the available record, Bedi is a player who reported an approach and denied being the unnamed source in the sting. His earlier association with CSK alone does not identify him as the person in Bhatia’s account, as told to Tehelka.
Five parts of the system appear to work together like well-oiled machinery.
A) Cricket shops
At the bottom of the pyramid are cricket shops that identify affluent families buying branded cricket equipment. A school teacher or academy coach is often close behind.
These shops are usually located in affluent areas and run by former first-class players. They supply kits to clubs and are often highly active on social media, posting player updates and promoting snazzy accessories alongside equipment in various sizes.
Outlets like ‘Only Sports’ in South Delhi act as feeders to clubs. Only Sports is owned by two brothers. One of them, Shawez Khan, is a former Delhi Ranji player from Virat Kohli’s batch. He often highlights that association, including through a widely shared video with Kohli at the DDCA ground during a Ranji Trophy match.
The outlet directs young players towards clubs. In return, coaches receive an agreed share. It is a symbiotic relationship that draws unsuspecting young players into the system from the start.
B) Coaches
Academy coaches are constantly on the lookout for such opportunities. They seek payments in return for sending their pupils to the shop for their annual purchases.
One coach who has been caught up in controversy is a well-known figure in West Delhi. He has coached a prominent Delhi cricketer and runs an academy of his own. A full-time coach, he is often seen speaking to assignment desks at media outlets looking for cricket experts for television shows. The claim is that a journalist who secures him such an appearance also receives a share.
C) Selectors
The academy coaches then reach out to selectors appointed by the DDCA.
In a 2020 Instagram interview with footballer Sunil Chhetri, Virat Kohli recalled his father’s response when payment was sought to secure his selection: “My father simply said, ‘If you want to select Virat, then let it be purely on merit. I will give you nothing extra’.”
The allegation is that some selectors act as front men for DDCA bosses, choosing below-par teams for personal gain. Delhi cricket pays the price.
Former Delhi player Chetanya Nanda’s case offers another example of how close cricket appointments and powerful officials can become. In 2017, Sportstar reported that the DDCA had nominated him for a BCCI match referee role while he was working as media assistant to C. K. Khanna, then the BCCI’s acting president. The nomination raised conflict-of-interest questions. Nanda later served on the DDCA selection panel.
Delhi in the Ranji Trophy: last 10 seasons
| Season | Delhi’s performance | Result |
| 2016–17 | 2 wins, 2 losses, 4 draws | 21 points; Group stage |
| 2017–18 | Reached the final | Runners-up to Vidarbha |
| 2018–19 | 1 win, 3 losses, 4 draws | 14 points; Group stage |
| 2019–20 | 2 wins, 1 loss, 5 draws | 21 points; Group stage |
| 2020–21 | Tournament cancelled due to COVID-19 | No season played |
| 2021–22 | 0 wins, 1 loss, 2 draws | Group stage |
| 2022–23 | 2 wins, 2 losses, 3 draws | 17 points; 6th in group |
| 2023–24 | 3 wins, 2 losses, 2 draws | 20 points; 3rd in group |
| 2024–25 | 2 wins, 2 losses, 3 draws | 21 points; 4th in group |
| 2025–26 | 0 wins, 1 loss, 6 draws | 9 points; 7th in group |
As is clear from the table above, Delhi’s best finish in this period was the 2017–18 final. It did not reach the knockout rounds in the other eight seasons that were played. The 2020–21 competition was cancelled.
D) The legal team
DDCA’s disputes have long extended beyond the cricket field. In 2011, the Delhi High Court dealt with concerns over age verification in junior cricket. In 2016, Kirti Azad and others sought a court-monitored investigation into alleged DDCA irregularities; the court declined to order one at that stage because a CBI preliminary enquiry was already under way. The High Court also brought in Justice Mukul Mudgal to supervise aspects of DDCA’s functioning. In 2017, it appointed Justice Vikramajit Sen as administrator and ordered an external audit. These were separate proceedings, but together they show how frequently DDCA’s governance has come under scrutiny from courts and outside authorities.
The cost of that legal machinery has also drawn scrutiny. In March 2020, a news agency reported, after examining DDCA payment sheets, that the association had paid ₹1.63 crore in legal expenses since November 2019 while coaches and support staff were awaiting payment.
Kirti Azad separately questioned the rising legal costs. Rohan Jaitley, himself a lawyer and the son of late lawyer and former Union Minister Arun Jaitley, later became DDCA president. The reported 2020 spending predates his presidency. The longer pattern is clear: disputes lead to proceedings, and proceedings bring lawyers, fees and institutional support.
Court cases and ombudsman matters
| Year | Matter | Details |
| 2011 | Junior age verification | Age checks for junior players. |
| 2016 | Kirti Azad’s petition | Request for further investigation; court noted an existing CBI preliminary enquiry. |
| 2015–17 | Court supervision and audit | Justice Mudgal’s reports, Justice Sen’s appointment and audit directions. |
| 2018–19 | Vinod Tihara dispute | Suspension, ombudsman findings and authority to remove a DDCA secretary. |
| 2020 | Renovation and accounts | Ombudsman order concerning renovation documents and financial questions. |
| 2023 | Ombudsman appointment | Challenge to Justice M. M. Kumar’s appointment and the proper forum. |
DDCA’s published records also identify Justices Badar Durrez Ahmed, Deepak Verma and Indu Malhotra as ombudsmen at different times. The 2023 court record documents Justice M. M. Kumar’s appointment. They held the office at different points and dealt with different disputes.
Saurabh Chadda is one name that recurs in this legal history. DDCA’s own notice identifies him as its standing counsel, and a Delhi High Court record lists him as standing or nominated counsel under a February 2021 letter. He also appeared in DDCA proceedings involving former secretary Vinod Tihara. A 2020 ombudsman order describes him as erstwhile standing counsel, so his role changed over time. The available records establish his professional association with DDCA, but do not identify any particular amount paid to him from the legal expenses reported in 2020.
E) DPL team owners
This is where the can of worms opens. The DPL has several team owners, some well known and others less familiar to the public. Under the league’s rules, a franchise can choose three players on demand for its 25-player squad. That gives owners a route into team selection beyond the regular auction process.
The allegation is that this discretion can be traded for money or a favour, allowing a franchise to bring a below-par player into its team. Once a selection like that becomes visible, word spreads. Questions begin, murmurs grow, and the decision becomes harder to explain.
Dev Chaudhary’s selection by the New Delhi Tigers brought that rule into the spotlight. Videos of his batting and fielding circulated widely, and questions were raised about his place in the squad. In his first two matches, he made a duck off two balls and 16 off 24.
DDCA secretary Ashok Sharma said the Tigers had chosen Chaudhary under the on-demand provision without a DDCA recommendation. The DDCA said it would consider reviewing the rule.
The selectors appear to escape scrutiny. The team coaches shift the blame to DDCA. DDCA points to the BCCI, and the BCCI, in turn, points to a franchise whose dealings remain opaque. Responsibility travels from one desk to another, but the central question remains: how did the player enter the team?
