BCCI's Lifetime Ban for Analyst Raja Reddy: Every Detail of the Ranji Trophy Spot-Fix That Unravelled Thanks to One Cricketer's Refusal
The approach was simple, brazen and — ultimately — self-destructive. A video analyst with full accreditation, access to the third umpire’s room and a BCCI appointment letter tried to buy five runs across two overs for ₹5 lakh and the opposition’s team sheet. A young cricketer refused, told his manager, and walked away from the money without flinching.
That sequence of events in Indore in February 2024 has taken two years to reach its formal conclusion — but on Thursday, the BCCI Ombudsman, former Supreme Court judge Arun Kumar Mishra, delivered it: video analyst Raja Reddy has been banned from all BCCI activities for life.
It is the most severe sanction available under the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code. And the details of the case — the WhatsApp messages, the betting applications, the Bet365 account reactivated while Reddy was a BCCI participant, the Skrill digital wallet, the privileged access to match-day infrastructure that made it all possible — paint a picture of someone who understood exactly how much trust the system had placed in him and decided to exploit every layer of it.
What Raja Reddy Did — and How Girinath Reddy Stopped It
Andhra’s Ranji Trophy quarterfinal against Madhya Pradesh was played between February 23 and 26, 2024, at Holkar Cricket Stadium in Indore — one of India’s fastest pitches, and the home ground of the eventual 2023-24 Ranji Trophy champions.
Raja Reddy was working as a BCCI-appointed video analyst for the match, carrying full PMOA (Pitch, Match Officials Area) accreditation. This access allowed him to enter the room designated for the third umpire and the match referee — a space that, in any well-run cricket operation, is one of the most sensitive areas of a match venue. It is where officials review DRS decisions, where video footage is monitored, and where communication with on-field umpires takes place. It is not a space where corruption should be physically possible.
Reddy used this position, and the intelligence it gave him about team movements and preparations, to approach Girinath Reddy — Andhra’s cricketer — with a two-part proposal. First: reveal the Andhra Playing XI before it was officially announced. Second: concede five runs in two of his overs, in exchange for ₹5 lakh. The approach was made via WhatsApp, on a platform that creates a digital trail every message and call leaves behind.
Girinath Reddy refused. He then reported the approach to his team manager Jugal Kishore, who in turn immediately notified the BCCI’s ACSU official present at the ground. Within hours of the approach, the anti-corruption machinery had been activated.
“The WhatsApp call and chat history shows that the respondent repeatedly contacted Mr. Girinath Reddy, who refused to engage with him. Mr. Girinath clearly stated that he would report the incident to his team manager,” read the Ombudsman’s official statement.
The phrase “repeatedly contacted” is telling. This was not an impulsive, one-message approach that might be dismissed as misunderstanding. Raja Reddy persisted. Girinath Reddy refused, consistently, and made absolutely clear what he intended to do about it.
The Digital Evidence That Sealed the Case
The BCCI ACSU investigation uncovered evidence that went significantly beyond the WhatsApp exchange. What emerged was a pattern of behaviour that the inquiry determined had been ongoing for some time.
Multiple email IDs were found configured on Raja Reddy’s phone. Analysis of his official email account revealed an active Bet365 account — one of the world’s largest online betting operators — that Reddy had reactivated in February 2023. The significance of that date is precise: it falls within the period during which Reddy was classified as a “participant” under the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code, meaning he was already in breach of the Code’s prohibition on betting for more than a year before the Indore approach.
A Skrill digital wallet was also found linked to his phone. Skrill is primarily used internationally as a payment platform for online gambling transactions — depositing funds into betting accounts, withdrawing winnings and moving money across gambling platforms. Its presence on the device of a BCCI-accredited official, alongside an active Bet365 account, formed a consistent picture that the Ombudsman could not interpret charitably.
During the inquiry, Reddy admitted to placing bets — but attempted to distance himself from the evidence by claiming the activity had been “a long time ago.” The BCCI’s documentation showed the Bet365 account had been reactivated in February 2023, a claim directly contradicting his own account. The Ombudsman’s final order — issued November 11, 2025, and made public in March 2026 — found Reddy guilty under Articles 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code: corruption offences relating to fixing and improperly influencing match events.
The Wider Pattern: India’s Domestic Cricket Has a Corruption Problem It Is Taking Seriously
The Raja Reddy case does not exist in isolation. Indian domestic cricket has seen a series of corruption-related actions by the BCCI ACSU in the last eighteen months, and the pattern is both alarming and, in a specific sense, reassuring.
In December 2025, the Assam Cricket Association suspended four players — Amit Sinha, Ishan Ahmed, Aman Tripathi and Abhishek Thakuri — after the BCCI ACSU found they had made corrupt approaches to current Assam squad members during the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy in Lucknow. Crucially, those approaches were reported to the ACSU by Assam captain Riyan Parag — the same “report it immediately” culture that Girinath Reddy had demonstrated in the Ranji Trophy case. The ACA lodged an FIR with the Crime Branch in Guwahati.
In April 2025, ahead of IPL 2025, the BCCI ACSU issued a circular to all franchise owners, players, and support staff warning about a Hyderabad-based individual with alleged links to bookmakers, who was attempting to gain proximity to IPL stakeholders using social media, gifting, and approaches to players’ family members based abroad.
These are not isolated incidents. They are evidence of a system under sustained external pressure — and of a BCCI anti-corruption structure that has become more operationally capable at detecting, investigating and punishing that pressure than at any point in its history.
The Code Raja Reddy Violated — and What It Means
Articles 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code are the core offences in any domestic corruption case. Article 2.1.3 covers “directly or indirectly soliciting, inducing, enticing, instructing, persuading, encouraging or intentionally facilitating any participant to breach the Code.” Article 2.1.4 covers attempts to fix or improperly influence — or to agree with any party to engage in attempts — to fix or improperly influence the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any match.
Both offences carry a maximum sanction of lifetime ineligibility — the ban Reddy has now received. For context, Spot-fixing offences under 2.1.4 (affecting specific moments or overs within a match, rather than the overall result) typically attract lighter sanctions than outright result-fixing under 2.1.1. The decision to impose a lifetime ban despite this distinction reflects the aggravating factors the Ombudsman identified: active Bet365 account during participation period, multiple betting and payment platforms installed on the device, persistent contact with the targeted player, and the exploitation of privileged PMOA access that put Reddy inside official match-management infrastructure.
The sanction is proportionate. An analyst who sits in the third umpire’s room, who knows the match schedule in advance, who has access to sensitive communications during the match, who installed betting apps and reactivated a Bet365 account during his BCCI tenure and then used WhatsApp to repeatedly approach a cricketer with a cash offer — the lifetime ban is not excessive. It is exactly calibrated to the breach of trust involved.
Girinath Reddy, who refused, reported, and cooperated fully with the inquiry, has not been sanctioned. His conduct throughout — including his immediate disclosure to the team manager and his willingness to provide WhatsApp evidence to the ACSU — is precisely the behaviour the BCCI’s reporting culture is designed to encourage, and precisely why the case ended in a conviction rather than an allegation.