Whether Charge of PERJURY on BCCI is maintained by Hon’ble SCI?

Arjun J Chaudhuri

That Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on DOH 15 December 2016 has deemed the conduct of BCCI’s president Anurag Thakur as ‘obstructive’, and set the stage for the official replacement of BCCI’s office bearers charging BCCI’s president Anurag Thakur Prima-Facie with Perjury & Contempt of Court.  That Hon’ble-SC Bench comprising Chief-Justice TS Thakur, and Justices DY Chandrachud & AM Khanwilkar has stated that it is judicially-inclined to initiate Prosecution against BCCI’s-President Anurag Thakur for committing the Act of Perjury, therefore being in contempt of court proceedings U/Contempt of Courts Act of 1972.

That charges of committing perjury were formally-debated after the SC-Bench comprising of Chief-Justice TS Thakur, and Justices DY Chandrachud and AM Khanwilkar judicially found legal discrepancies and material inconsistencies in BCCI’s-President Anurag Thakur’s statements made in his 3 December 2016 affidavit-filed before the Supreme-Court of India [SCI] on the Subject of seeking the elusive-Letter from the International Cricket Council [ICC] that intended to state that any implementation of Justice RM Lodha-Panel’s [2013-Till Date] recommendations for administrative reforms post IPL-betting & spot-fixing scandal, and following the Supreme-Court of India’s judicial directions amounted to government interference in the BCCI’s working which could ultimately-mean the de-recognition of BCCI by ICC, and therefore justifying BCCI’s-President Anurag Thakur’s utter-inability/disability to follow the Supreme-Court of India’s judicial directions or forcing compliance of these recommendations for administrative reforms by state associations of Cricket. 

However, contrary to such unsubstantiated claims by BCCI’s-President Anurag Thakur in his 3 December 2016 affidavit filed before the Supreme-Court of provide any such letter to BCCI-President Anurag Thakur to substantiate his claims before the Supreme-Court of India.

That principal opposition to any implementation of Justice RM Lodha-Panel’s [2013-Till Date] recommendations for administrative reforms posts IPL-betting and spot-fixing scandal is the one-state one-vote formula, the age cap for office bearers, and the ban on civil servants being part of BCCI’s board.

The BCCI’s President Anurag Thakur’s utter-inability/disability to follow the Supreme Court of India’s judicial directions or forcing compliance of these recommendations for administrative reforms by state associations of cricket is leading to legal-questions of Quo-Warranto, that is, by what right does the said BCCI president hold claim to office. 

That Hon’ble Supreme-Court of India had also previously-asked the BCCI to suggest alternative names of candidates who could replace the current office-bearers in response to objections raised by BCCI to Justice Lodha-Panel plea to appoint former Home Secretary GK Pillai as the observer. BCCI has categorically opposed to the appointment of the administrator, and any alternatives to current office-bearers who will occupy the posts once vacancy is created. 

That already, to enforce Justice RM Lodha-Panel’s [2013-Till Date] recommendations for administrative-reforms Post IPL-betting & Spot-fixing scandal, the Hon’ble Supreme-Court of India [SCI] barred BCCI from disbursing funds to State-Associations of Cricket until the State-Associations of Cricket implement reforms suggested by the RM Lodha-Panel, and put in place the threshold for sports related contracts that the BCCI can enter into with other parties, and authoritative right of Justice RM Lodha -Panel to vet such sports related contracts that the BCCI can enter into with other parties. That for the purpose the independent auditor for maintenance of BCCI’s accounts is also directed to be administratively appointed to enhance accountability and transparency in the funds release on other occasions.