New stewards to decide Jadhav, Shroff’s fate
The regulatory body that administers the Sport of Kings at Royal Western India Turf Club is served by honorary club members and has always been aided by the commandments enshrined in the club’s Rules of Racing. And, during the course of any disciplinary hearing that involves an alleged breach of medication rules, the three words that one gets to hear quite often right from the arrival of the confirmatory sample’s report until the stewards deliver their verdict are: mitigating circumstances, vicarious liability and discretion.
A horse trainer accused of flouting the medication rules is required to provide mitigating circumstances to explain the presence of any banned drug in his horse’s system if he expects reprieve, failing which he is held vicariously liable and the discretion of deciding the quantum of punishment rests with the stewards.
With the rules of racing failing to provide a specific definition for the term “mitigating circumstances”, its interpretation is left to each individual member of the stewards’ body. Similarly, the parameters for deciding the vicarious liability of a trainer are ambiguous too. As for the “discretion” term, it actually is a double-edged sword which can make or mar a trainer’s career. More often than not, trainers find themselves at the receiving end as few stewards are really capable of understanding the true meaning of discretion.
Meanwhile, following the Board of Appeal expressing its inability to hear the appeals of MK Jadhav and Pesi Shroff citing fresh evidence, the stewards’ body headed by Gulamhusein Vahanvaty will conduct the hearing of these two cases anew. This hearing, it’s learnt, would start after the Pune Derby.
These two cases have been in the news for an unduly long tenure initially because of the manner in which the investigations were previously conducted and later when embarrassing details of the differences over the timing of the possible hearing among BoA members surfaced.
Nevertheless, though Jadhav and Shroff are both patronised by KN Dhunjibhoy and Vijay Shirke, they should have a good reason to believe that the current stewards would scrutinize their mitigating circumstances both scientifically and logically. Of course, Pesi’s earlier inquiries related to Eloise and Bullseye were mired in controversy but that nightmarish experience should be a thing of the past now.
Food for thought
Interestingly, last week, Justice Abhay Thipsay of the Bombay High Court made an interesting observation when upholding a prison term awarded to a convict under the recently-enacted Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act. Justice Thipsay touched upon the contradiction between ‘the presumption contained in Section 29 of POSCO’ and the ‘presumption of innocence’ cited by Indian laws.
Going by the “presumption of guilt” in the special law, the court has to consider that the accused has committed the offence and the onus of proving his innocence lies on him.
But if the court relies on “presumption of innocence,” the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Here it’s the prosecution’s responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
Whether to go by the presumption of guilt or innocence is the stewards’ choice, but there’s something in Justice Thipsay’s observation which they must ponder before reaching any verdict.
A horse trainer accused of flouting the medication rules is required to provide mitigating circumstances to explain the presence of any banned drug in his horse’s system if he expects reprieve, failing which he is held vicariously liable and the discretion of deciding the quantum of punishment rests with the stewards.
With the rules of racing failing to provide a specific definition for the term “mitigating circumstances”, its interpretation is left to each individual member of the stewards’ body. Similarly, the parameters for deciding the vicarious liability of a trainer are ambiguous too. As for the “discretion” term, it actually is a double-edged sword which can make or mar a trainer’s career. More often than not, trainers find themselves at the receiving end as few stewards are really capable of understanding the true meaning of discretion.
New hope
Meanwhile, following the Board of Appeal expressing its inability to hear the appeals of MK Jadhav and Pesi Shroff citing fresh evidence, the stewards’ body headed by Gulamhusein Vahanvaty will conduct the hearing of these two cases anew. This hearing, it’s learnt, would start after the Pune Derby.
These two cases have been in the news for an unduly long tenure initially because of the manner in which the investigations were previously conducted and later when embarrassing details of the differences over the timing of the possible hearing among BoA members surfaced.
Nevertheless, though Jadhav and Shroff are both patronised by KN Dhunjibhoy and Vijay Shirke, they should have a good reason to believe that the current stewards would scrutinize their mitigating circumstances both scientifically and logically. Of course, Pesi’s earlier inquiries related to Eloise and Bullseye were mired in controversy but that nightmarish experience should be a thing of the past now.
Food for thought
Interestingly, last week, Justice Abhay Thipsay of the Bombay High Court made an interesting observation when upholding a prison term awarded to a convict under the recently-enacted Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act. Justice Thipsay touched upon the contradiction between ‘the presumption contained in Section 29 of POSCO’ and the ‘presumption of innocence’ cited by Indian laws.
Going by the “presumption of guilt” in the special law, the court has to consider that the accused has committed the offence and the onus of proving his innocence lies on him.
But if the court relies on “presumption of innocence,” the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Here it’s the prosecution’s responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
Whether to go by the presumption of guilt or innocence is the stewards’ choice, but there’s something in Justice Thipsay’s observation which they must ponder before reaching any verdict.
