What began as a Tehelka investigation into the alleged sale of inside information has now reached the cricket establishment, with the DDCA writing to the BCCI.
New Delhi: A few days ago, the story was sitting inside the pages of Tehelka magazine. Today, it is being discussed across the cricket media, has prompted a response from the Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA) and has reached the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
Tehelka’s investigation into alleged corruption in cricket was published in the magazine before being put online on September 19. Titled “Inside Cricket’s Fixing Network”, the investigation was based on an undercover operation involving former Ranji Trophy player Rachit Bhatia.
At the heart of the investigation was a simple but revealing episode.
On August 3, before a Delhi Premier League match between Central Delhi Kings and North Delhi Strikers, Bhatia provided Tehelka’s undercover reporter with what he claimed was the Central Delhi Kings playing XI. The information was given before the official announcement. When the team was announced, the XI matched the information Bhatia had provided.
That was the evidence at the centre of Tehelka’s investigation. Bhatia also made wider claims about IPL and domestic cricket, including allegations concerning Chennai Super Kings. Those wider claims remain allegations attributed to Bhatia.
The story did not remain inside the magazine for long.
Once the investigation was online, cricket publications and mainstream news organisations began following the claims. But the first major shift came when the story moved from an undercover recording to an official response from cricket authorities.
On September 22, The Indian Express reported that the DDCA had written to the BCCI about an alleged “corrupt approach”. DDCA secretary Ashok Sharma confirmed that the association had approached the BCCI after being informed about the matter. The report also directly connected the development to the Tehelka sting.
The DDCA subsequently made clear that it was not treating the allegations as established facts. It described them as unverified, said they had not been established by a competent authority and said the information had been shared with the relevant authorities for examination.
Then another person entered the story.
The Times of India reported that Vansh Bedi, who played for Central Delhi Kings, had himself reported an alleged “fixing approach” to the Anti-Corruption Wing during the DPL. According to DDCA secretary Ashok Sharma, the approach was allegedly made by a player from Uttar Pradesh who was also playing in a T20 league there. The DDCA had subsequently written to the BCCI seeking guidance.
The same development was picked up by India Today and Business Standard, which reported Bedi’s complaint to the anti-corruption authorities.
But the Bedi episode soon developed another layer.
As discussion spread online about the unnamed player referred to in Tehelka’s investigation, Bedi’s name began circulating in connection with the allegations. He then publicly denied that he was the player referred to by Bhatia.
Bedi said he had no involvement in match-fixing and described attempts to link him to the Tehelka sting as false and defamatory. His denial was subsequently reported by several publications.
There is an important distinction here. Tehelka’s investigation did not publicly name Bedi as the player allegedly providing the CSK information. His reported complaint about a corrupt approach and his subsequent denial of being the unnamed CSK player are separate developments.
As the story grew, the focus also moved towards the institutional response.
CricTracker reported that the DDCA had informed the BCCI about the alleged corruption approach involving Bedi, while other cricket publications continued to examine the CSK angle and the wider allegations made during the Tehelka sting.
The story also travelled beyond India. Pakistan’s Dawn carried the investigation under the headline “Fresh fixing claims surface in Indian cricket after sting”, focusing on Bhatia’s claims about IPL and domestic cricket while also reporting the DDCA’s response. Dawn noted that the allegations had not been verified by a competent authority.
That is perhaps the clearest measure of how quickly the story travelled: an investigation that first appeared in Tehelka’s magazine, and was subsequently published online on September 19, was now being reported by publications across the cricket media and outside India.
And the story had acquired an institutional life of its own.
The DDCA had acknowledged the issue, communicated with the BCCI and said the matter should go through the established process. Bedi had publicly denied being the unnamed player referred to in the sting. The media was following both the allegations and the responses.
For Tehelka, that journey is significant.
The investigation was not simply a story about what a former Ranji player said to an undercover reporter. It put a question about access to confidential team information and the vulnerability of cricket to corrupt approaches into the public domain. Within days, that question had travelled from the pages of a magazine to the newsrooms of major publications and, ultimately, to the offices of the cricket administration.
The investigation began with a camera, a conversation and an alleged offer of inside information. It has now become a story being discussed by the people and institutions responsible for protecting the integrity of the game.
