Noting that its diktats are not “written in sand” and are meant to be complied with, the Supreme Court on Monday stripped BCCI president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke of their posts and ordered them to “forthwith cease and desist” from associating with Indian cricket’s most powerful body.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud declared Mr. Thakur and Mr. Shirke “unfit” to continue at the helm of the BCCI for their “obstructionist” attitude and specious pleas in court about their incapacity to make affiliated State associations fall in line with the Justice Lodha reforms.
The court primarily referred to how Mr. Thakur had “washed his hands of a duty and obligation to ensure compliance” with the Lodha panel reforms, citing the excuse that he had been “rendered totally incapable and without any authority” to compel the members to comply with the orders of the court.
The BCCI bosses not only made “unfortunate comments” about the Lodha panel in public but also ended up hurting the dignity of the Supreme Court with their attitude, the order noted.
Besides, the court found Mr. Thakur prima facie guilty of both contempt of Supreme Court proceedings and perjury (fabrication of false evidence), adding that such a person does not deserve to continue as BCCI president.
The court held that Mr. Thakur’s attempts to “solicit” ICC Chairman Shashank Manohar in Dubai for a letter to undermine the judgment of July 18, 2016 which upheld the Lodha panel recommendation to include a CAG nominee on the Board’s apex council prima facie amounted to sheer contempt.
The court concluded that Mr. Thakur had apparently acted to garner evidence that the Supreme Court-appointed Lodha Committee’s interventions in the working of the BCCI amounted to “governmental interference.”
The apex court further said Mr. Thakur was prima facie guilty of placing on record “fabricated” minutes of a BCCI Working Committee meeting held on August 22, 2016 in order to lend support to his version that he had only sought a clarification from Mr. Manohar and not a letter.
This claim of Mr. Thakur was later found untrue when Mr. Manohar, in a communication to the Supreme Court on November 2, clarified that the BCCI president did ask him for the letter. The court found that Mr. Thakur had also filed affidavits making false statements.
The court has issued notice to Mr. Thakur for his response on why he should not face both contempt proceedings and criminal prosecution for perjury.
The order, authored by Justice Chandrachud, fully supported the Justice Lodha panel recommendation to oust BCCI office-bearers and administrators of affiliated State associations who are above 70 years old, who are insolvent, government ministers and servants, office-bearers of other sports and athletic associations, those who have already enjoyed a cumulative period of nine years at the BCCI helm and those charged with criminal offences.
“Several office-bearers both of BCCI and the State Associations continue to hold posts although they stand disqualified in terms of the above norms ... the turf of the cricket field is not a personal turf or fiefdom,” the Supreme Court observed.
The court said a committee of administrators would be appointed to run the BCCI. The Bench sought “objective assistance” from senior advocate Fali Nariman and amicus curiae and senior advocate Gopal Subramanium to choose persons of experience and integrity for the committee. The court asked the senior advocates to submit their report in two weeks.
Choosing interim chief
Meanwhile, till the committee was formed, the court ordered the seniormost vice-president of the BCCI to take over as BCCI president and the joint secretary to replace him. The Supreme Court, here, referred to how it had in 2014 appointed retired cricketer Sunil Gavaskar as interim BCCI president in relation to IPL 2014 when it had found the then BCCI president, N. Srinivasan, incapable of performing his duties.
The court said other BCCI administrators, excluding Mr. Thakur and Mr. Shirke, shall continue, provided they do not fall under the categories the Lodha panel recommended for immediate ouster. Such administrators who remain after the filtering should provide an unconditional undertaking in four weeks that they will comply with the Lodha panel reforms.
Once the committee of administrators is formed, the Lodha panel’s job will be confined to overall policy-making. The administrators would work in association with the Lodha panel.
The next hearing is scheduled for January 19.
