The recent suspension of the Indian police official, Somnath Zende, for his online gaming win, has raised questions about the fairness and appropriateness of the punishment, particularly when considering the widespread participation in such activities.
Somnath Zende won 15m rupees ($180,310, £149,009) on a fantasy sports platform and worked in the police department in Pune’s Pimpri Chinchwad area; however, in a strange twist of fate, he was suspended for playing the game without permission and for giving media interviews in his uniform, (perhaps this part could have been avoided).
While maintaining the integrity and professionalism of the police force is undoubtedly essential, it is worth examining whether suspending an officer over a gaming win is a proportional response.
First and foremost, it is crucial to recognize that online fantasy sports and gaming platforms like Dream 11 have gained immense popularity in India and are widely regarded as games of skill, rather than games of chance.
They operate under a legal framework that distinguishes them from traditional gambling activities, and a 2021 Supreme Court ruling reinforces this distinction.
A significant portion of the public participates in these games, including professionals, students, and, apparently, police officers like Zende, who maintains that he began playing games on Dream 11 last month and on 10 October, he won the 15m-rupee prize money after winning a game on the platform.
Zende won while playing the game during a match between Bangladesh and England in the ongoing Cricket World Cup in India; however, following his win, reports say Zende was seen wearing his police uniform as the media interviewed him.
Amold Thorat, a worker of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is also in power in Maharashtra, wrote to the chief minister and his deputy, demanding action against Zende for engaging in “betting”.
Thorat accused Mr Zende of playing the game while on duty and called it a “dereliction of duty”, even as photos of Zende in his police uniform went viral online and sent the “wrong message about the state’s police force”, he said in his complaint.
Zende, however, says that he did not play the game while on duty and alleged that he was not the only police official to play the game.
“Many people play this game. It’s a sport. They play for hours,” he said. “It’s not a gambling game but still I’m being punished.”
Following the incident, a departmental inquiry has been initiated, and it is being said that Zende will be allowed to present his case. A senior police official said the department would decide on a future course of action after the inquiry committee submits its report.
The Viewpoint
The whole incident raises the question of whether Zende’s suspension was excessively punitive, given the legal and social context.
Moreover, the disciplinary action taken against Zende, including the suspension, was initiated based on claims that he played the game without proper authorization and gave media interviews in his police uniform.
These allegations may warrant internal review and appropriate measures but do not inherently link his gaming activities to a violation of the police code of conduct.
Zende’s insistence that he did not play the game while on duty and his assertion that other police officers also participate in similar gaming activities highlight the complexity of the issue.
If numerous individuals, including public servants, are engaging in similar online gaming pastimes without incident, a thorough assessment is needed to determine if Zende’s suspension was unduly harsh or selective.
For now, Zende plans to utilize his winnings to settle a housing loan and secure his children’s future; one could argue that his suspension could have far-reaching consequences for his family.
The Last Bit,
This situation accentuates the importance of ensuring that any punitive action taken is proportionate and considers the broader impact on individuals and their dependents, as well as a well-defined parameter as to what is appropriate, rules and regulations that apply to government employees.
The widespread participation in such gaming activities and the legal framework that distinguishes them from gambling warrant a thorough review of the punitive measures taken.
Hence, while there is no doubt that maintaining the integrity and professionalism of the police force is of utmost importance, it is vital to evaluate the appropriateness of the punishment in the context of the widespread participation in online gaming and the specific circumstances surrounding Zende’s case.
A more measured and comprehensive approach may be required to address such issues, taking into account the legal framework, individual intent, and the potential consequences of punitive actions.
