Thirty-five years. In the arithmetic of criminal sentencing, that number is not a slap — it is a sledgehammer. The Additional Sessions court in thiruvananthapuram, kerala, has sentenced cricket coach Shijil raj to 35 years of rigorous imprisonment, convicting him for the sexual abuse of a minor trainee, as reported by The Hindu. The sentence lands with deserved force. But it also lands late — after, in this publication's assessment, every institutional guardrail that should have stood between a child and a predator had already crumbled, or never existed at all.

That is the uncomfortable truth this verdict forces into the open: india punishes abuse in youth sports retroactively, sometimes severely. What it does not do — systematically, structurally, reliably — is prevent it. That, at least, is the analysis this case compels.

Note: Neither Shijil Raj's defence counsel nor the convicted coach could be reached for comment by india Herald at the time of publication. It is not known at the time of writing whether an appeal against the conviction has been filed. The Hindu's report did not reference any statement from the defence regarding the verdict.

The Verdict: Severity as Statement

The quantum of the sentence — 35 years of rigorous imprisonment — is striking by indian standards. Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, courts have wide sentencing latitude for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, with a minimum of 20 years extending to life. The kerala court's decision to go well beyond that minimum, as reported by The Hindu, sends a pointed message: the breach of a fiduciary relationship between a coach and a child-athlete will be treated with maximal severity.

But sentencing, however severe, is a downstream function. It activates only after a child has already been harmed, after a complaint has been lodged, after investigation and trial have run their course. The question the verdict cannot answer is the one that matters most: why was the harm not intercepted upstream?

The Safeguarding Void in indian youth Sports: An Analysis

In this publication's assessment, India's youth sports infrastructure is, by global standards, remarkably under-regulated when it comes to child protection. Consider the landscape: a large and growing number of private cricket academies, coaching camps, and residential training centres operate across kerala and the rest of the country. Based on publicly available information reviewed by india Herald, there does not appear to be any universally mandated background verification requirement for coaches working with minors at the grassroots level in indian cricket — though individual institutions may maintain their own standards.

For context, comparable sporting nations have established dedicated child-protection infrastructure within sport: the united kingdom operates a Child Protection in Sport Unit under the NSPCC, as documented in NSPCC's public reporting, and Sport Integrity australia functions as an independent integrity body overseeing safeguarding in Australian sport, per the agency's published mandate. india Herald's review of publicly available bcci and state cricket association documentation did not identify an equivalent, enforceable child-safeguarding framework that reaches down to unaffiliated private academies where most young cricketers train.

India Herald sought comment from cricket in india-Latest Updates, Photos, Videos are a click away, CLICK NOW">the board of control for cricket in india (BCCI) and the kerala cricket Association (KCA) regarding their child-safeguarding policies for grassroots coaching. No response had been received at the time of publication. Any characterisation of safeguarding gaps at these bodies in this article reflects india Herald's analysis of publicly available information and should not be read as established fact about internal policies that may exist but are not publicly documented.

The result, in this publication's analysis, is a patchwork: some institutions may maintain internal standards; many appear to operate in a regulatory space where a coach's authority over a child is not subject to independent safeguarding oversight. This is not, in our assessment, a Kerala-specific failure. It is a national one. But the irony cuts deeper in kerala — a state that consistently leads india in literacy, human development indices, and social welfare metrics. If the safeguarding gap exists here, the question is whether it exists everywhere.

The Coach-Athlete Power Dynamic: A Known Vulnerability

sports abuse research globally — from the nassar scandal in USA Gymnastics, as documented by the 2018 U.S. Senate investigation, to the UK Football Association's independent inquiry led by Clive sheldon QC in 2021 — identifies the coach-athlete relationship as one of the highest-risk environments for child sexual abuse. The dynamic combines physical proximity, emotional dependency, authority imbalance, and often parental deference to the coach's expertise. In the indian context, where a cricket coach can be seen as the gatekeeper to a child's future in the sport, that power asymmetry is, in this publication's view, amplified.

Parents entrust their children to coaches with an implicit faith that is rarely, based on available evidence, backed by institutional verification. In many private academies — based on india Herald's assessment of the regulatory landscape — there is no requirement for a second adult to be present during training, no anonymous reporting channel for trainees, no periodic safeguarding audit. The child is, structurally, alone with the adult who holds power over their sporting future.

What the Sentence Cannot Fix

The kerala court's 35-year sentence will, rightly, be seen as a landmark. It demonstrates that the judiciary takes these offences with the gravity they demand. But deterrence through sentencing has well-documented limits in criminological research, particularly in abuse cases where the offender typically believes they will never be caught. The real deterrent, experts in child protection argue, is not the punishment waiting at the end — it is the system that makes abuse difficult to commit and impossible to hide.

That system does not yet exist in indian youth sports, in this publication's assessment. Building it would require, at minimum: mandatory police verification and psychometric screening for all coaches working with minors; enforceable codes of conduct with independent oversight; anonymous, accessible reporting mechanisms for young athletes; periodic third-party safeguarding audits of academies and training centres; and statutory obligations on sporting bodies — from the bcci down to district associations — to maintain and monitor child protection standards.

None of this is radical. Much of it is standard practice in comparable sporting nations, as referenced above. All of it is, in india Herald's view, overdue in india — a country that produces world-class cricketers but has not yet produced a world-class system for protecting the children who aspire to become them.

Kerala's Paradox — and India's

Kerala's social development achievements are real and well-documented. The state's literacy rate, healthcare outcomes, and gender parity metrics are the envy of much of India. But social development indicators, however impressive, are not the same as institutional safeguarding. A state can have near-universal literacy and still lack the specific, targeted child-protection infrastructure that youth sports demand. This case is a reminder that development and safety are not synonyms — and that the most dangerous gaps are often the ones that high-performing systems assume they have already closed.

For indian cricket more broadly, this verdict arrives at a moment when the sport's commercial and aspirational value has never been higher. Millions of children enter coaching academies each year, chasing dreams fuelled by the IPL, by national heroes, by the kind of mentor networks that shape careers at the top. The pipeline that feeds those dreams must be made safe — not by hoping that coaches are decent people, but by building systems that do not require hope.

Thirty-five years is a long sentence. It is also a long time for a child to carry what was done to them. The court did its job. The question now is whether the institutions upstream — the academies, the associations, the bcci, the state — will do theirs before the next child walks into a net session with a coach no one has checked.

Key Takeaways

• The Additional Sessions court in thiruvananthapuram sentenced cricket coach Shijil raj to 35 years of rigorous imprisonment for the sexual abuse of a minor trainee, per The Hindu — one of the harshest sentences in indian youth sports history.
• India appears to lack a mandatory, enforceable child-safeguarding framework for youth sports coaching at the grassroots level, based on india Herald's review of publicly available documentation from the bcci and state associations. Neither the bcci nor the KCA responded to requests for comment.
• The POCSO Act provides for severe sentences (minimum 20 years for aggravated penetrative sexual assault), but punishment is a downstream remedy that activates only after harm has occurred.
• Kerala, despite leading india in human development indicators, is not immune to safeguarding failures — highlighting, in this publication's analysis, that social development and institutional child protection are not the same thing.
• Global parallels (USA Gymnastics, UK Football) show that the coach-athlete relationship is a recognised high-risk environment, and that systemic reform — not just judicial severity — is what reduces abuse.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the sentence given to the kerala cricket coach?

The Additional Sessions court in thiruvananthapuram sentenced cricket coach Shijil raj to 35 years of rigorous imprisonment for the sexual abuse of a minor, according to The Hindu.

What law applies to child sexual abuse cases in India?

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act governs child sexual abuse cases in india, providing for stringent sentences including a minimum of 20 years for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

Does india have a child safeguarding framework for youth sports?

Based on india Herald's review of publicly available documentation, india does not appear to have a mandatory, enforceable child-safeguarding framework that covers youth sports coaching at the grassroots level. The bcci and KCA did not respond to requests for comment on their safeguarding policies.

What safeguarding measures could prevent abuse in youth sports?

Experts and global best practices — including models documented by the UK's NSPCC Child Protection in Sport Unit and Sport Integrity australia — point to mandatory background verification of coaches, independent oversight bodies, anonymous reporting channels for young athletes, periodic safeguarding audits, and statutory child protection obligations on sporting governing bodies.

Has the convicted coach indicated he will appeal?

At the time of publication, it was not known whether Shijil raj or his defence counsel had filed or indicated an intention to file an appeal against the conviction and sentence.