A Tehelka undercover report has put fresh scrutiny on alleged corruption in Indian cricket after former Ranji cricketer Rachit Bhatia claimed he earned ₹3 crore from five IPL 2025 matches. The figure, he said, came from passing information about Chennai Super Kings (CSK) to London bookmakers through Snapchat at ₹60 lakh per match.
That account is a recorded claim made to an undercover reporter, not a proven finding. The published Tehelka report does not name the alleged CSK source, and no competent authority has publicly established that any CSK player, the franchise or the matches were involved in wrongdoing.
The Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA) said the allegations are unverified and have not been established by a competent authority. It said information had been shared with relevant authorities and that it would cooperate with any inquiry. A Times Now report said the BCCI response was awaited; no later outcome should be assumed here.
For verified developments, follow our latest cricket news page rather than social-media speculation.
Table of Contents
What is confirmed, claimed and unresolved
Status check
| Status | What the published reports establish |
|---|---|
| Confirmed | Tehelka published its undercover report; DDCA referred information to authorities; Bedi reported a DPL approach and denied the CSK link. |
| Claimed | Bhatia said he passed alleged CSK information in five IPL 2025 matches and received ₹3 crore. |
| Unresolved | The alleged CSK source, the truth of the claims, and any BCCI or competent-authority finding remain unknown. |
For Latest Updates & Dream11 Teams
What the Tehelka report says
In its published account, Tehelka reports that Bhatia said he had “fixed five matches” and received “Rs 60 lakh per match.” He linked those claims to alleged information about CSK being passed to London-based bookmakers through Snapchat. The total he claimed was Rs 3 crore.
The wording matters. Bhatia described an alleged information-sharing arrangement and presented it as “fixing” five matches. The report did not identify the person who allegedly supplied the CSK information. It also did not provide, in the material reviewed for this article, an official finding that confirms the claim or links a named player to it.
Tehelka separately quoted Bhatia making other allegations, including a claim about spot-fixing in the 2018-19 Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy. Those statements also remain allegations attributed to him and are not established events without findings from the appropriate authorities.
Match-fixing, spot-fixing and lineup leaks: what is the difference?
Match-fixing generally refers to an alleged effort to compromise the outcome of a match. In this case, Bhatia used that expression while describing his claimed role in five IPL 2025 games. His wording alone does not prove that any result was changed or that the alleged activity took place.
Spot-fixing concerns an alleged manipulated event within a match rather than necessarily the final result. Tehelka’s account uses the example of deliberately delivered wides in Bhatia’s separate claim about the 2018-19 tournament. Again, that is an allegation in an undercover recording, not an official conclusion.
A lineup information leak is the alleged release of confidential playing-XI information before the team makes it public. Tehelka described this as a form of inside information that could give betting interests an improper advantage. Whether such conduct meets a particular anti-corruption rule would depend on the facts, evidence and the competent body’s assessment. This article explains the terms; it does not provide betting guidance or operational detail.
DDCA response: allegations are not findings
DDCA’s statement took a cautious position. It said it had taken note of reports concerning alleged irregularities involving certain players and a DPL-linked franchise, but stressed that the allegations were unverified and had not been established by any competent authority.
The association said it would be inappropriate to reach conclusions about an individual, player or franchise based only on allegations. It also said it had written to the relevant authorities and shared information that had come to its notice, asking for the matter to be examined under established processes. DDCA added that it would provide full cooperation to any inquiry and that any action would depend on the findings of the appropriate authorities and applicable rules.
That is the current institutional position reported by DDCA: referral and cooperation, not a declaration of guilt. Readers can follow broader developments through 4xSports’ news section, but every update should be checked against an official statement or a named, accountable report.
Vansh Bedi’s DPL report is a separate matter
A second thread has been folded into the online conversation, but it must not be confused with Bhatia’s claim about five IPL matches.
PTI, published by Business Standard, reported that Vansh Bedi separately reported a corrupt approach during the Delhi Premier League to the league’s Anti-Corruption Unit. The report said Bedi followed the relevant protocol and that DDCA was informed. A DDCA office bearer also told PTI that Bedi’s complaint was the only official complaint registered with the ACU at that point.
Bedi then publicly denied that he was the CSK-linked player referred to in the sting. In a statement reported by Times Now, he said he had no involvement in the alleged activity and that his legal team was taking appropriate civil and criminal action over what he called false and defamatory links.
Those two facts can sit together without contradiction: Bedi may have reported a corrupt approach, while denying that he was the unnamed person referred to in Bhatia’s recorded claim. Bedi’s ACU report is not evidence that Bhatia’s IPL account is true, and Bhatia’s account is not evidence that Bedi was the alleged source.
Why the headline needs care
The appearance of “CSK” in a headline can make an allegation look like a finding. It does not establish that CSK, a player, or any match was involved. The same caution applies to identifying a person from team history, an old squad list or an image shared online.
Social-media posts, anonymous comments and guilt by association are not evidence. The published Tehelka account does not name the alleged CSK source, while Bedi has specifically denied being that person. Naming or implying a player without an official finding can cause serious and unfair reputational harm.
The responsible question is not “Who has been proved guilty?” because the cited reports do not establish that. The responsible questions are: What exactly was claimed? Who has responded? Which body has received information? What evidence, if any, has been tested through a formal process? At the time of writing, the answer remains that a sting-based claim has prompted official attention, while the central allegation remains unresolved.
What happens next?
The next meaningful update would be an on-record statement from the BCCI, its Anti-Corruption Unit, another competent authority, or a documented finding. Until then, readers should not present the ₹3 crore figure as verified earnings, the five matches as proven fixed games, or any unnamed player as the alleged source.
For context on the wider IPL story, readers can also see 4xSports’ coverage of the CSK head-coach update and the IPL 2027 trade tracker. Those links do not confirm or resolve the allegations discussed here.
Sources and reporting basis
This article is based on the Tehelka primary investigation, the PTI report published by Business Standard, Times Now’s report on the Bhatia claim and awaited BCCI response, Times Now’s report on Bedi’s denial, and Business Today’s independent account. The distinction between claims, responses and unresolved questions is intentional.
Bookmark 4xSports for verified official updates as they emerge—not rumours, social-media guesses or guilt by association.
