The Indian Express (Delhi Edition)
Can the court punish Thakur for perjury?
"SUPREME COURT judges feel the BCCI could do better under retired Judges, I wish them all the best," is what Anurag Thakur might have said in his public statement that he put up on Twitter. But if anything what the ousted president seems to be telling the Supreme Court is "good luck running the BCCI". He might even be right to an extent, considering the cloud of uncertainty that lurks over the Indian cricket board following the Supreme Court's decision to send the incumbent top brass packing on Monday.
With Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke gone, the BCCI has been left like a headless chickenscurryingaroundinproverbialcircles. It'snotlikethebccididn'texpectthingstoend like this. But now that things are getting real, membersacrosstheboardareleftinamassive quandary over their imminent futures, both individually and collectively, whether it is to do with when they should quit or what they should do next.
Mathew quits, Choudhary to be interim secretary
Therearethosewhowastednotimeinbiting the bullet like Kerala Cricket Association (KCA) president TC Mathew who was the first one to quit from his post. Mumbai Cricket Association(mca)chiefsharadpawarhadpreemptively taken the plunge a couple of weeks before the Supreme Court's verdict. And those familiarwiththeboard'sfunctioninginsistthat many more will follow their lead in the coming days.
"I expect the likes of Amitabh Choudhary (Jharkhandcricketassociationjointsecretary) and Anirudh Chaudhry (Haryana Cricket Association secretary) to give up their roles with their respective state bodies. They have completedwellovernineyearsthere.theywill obviously prefer to be with the BCCI," says one veteran administrator.
According to the Supreme Court order, Choudhary, who was till now the BCCI'S joint secretary,willanywaytakeoverasinterimsecretarytilljanuary19whenaentirelynewcommittee of administrators will take over the functioning of the BCCI. But it's still very unclear who will be in-charge of the BCCI over the next nearly two-and-a-half weeks. Following the dismantling of the top brass in theboard,thesupremecourthaddirectedthat theseniormostvice-presidentwouldperform those duties. The BCCI though seems to have littleideaaboutwhichoneofthefivevice-presidents could be potentially nominated to run the show temporarily.
Johri could be president
CK Khanna from the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) is the senior-most intermsofthisbeinghisthirdterminthisrole. Buthisdubiouspastiswell-documentedwith Justice Mukul Mudgal having referred to Khanna as a "pernicious influence" in his report as DDCA observer.
Like Khanna, Goutam Roy who's headed the Assam Cricket Association for close to two decades, doesn't have the cleanest record either.formerindiacaptainsouravgangulyand veteran Andhra Cricket Association (ACA) administrator G Gangaraju, meanwhile, are in line for colling-off periods considering they've already overshot the prescribed durations of panel. theirrespectivetenureswiththeirstatebodies. For now, CEO Rahul Johri seems the likeliest candidate to hold the reins.
Gangaraju though revealed that the ACA would immediately implement all the Lodha reformsonthebackofthesupremecourtverdict. "There is no confusion as Supreme Court has passed it’s verdict. As the president of Andhra Cricket Association we would implement Lodha Reforms in totality with immediate effect. If it means that we have to go into coolingoffperiod,sobeit.indiancricketshould move forward,” he told PTI on Monday.
Whenaskedaboutwhetherheconsidered himself to be in line for the interim president's post in the BCCI, the ACA chief seemed uncertain like everyone else in the board.
“Look,istillneedsomeclarityoverthematter. Mr CK Khanna of DDCA is also a senior VP. But in any case it will be a temporary post as I will also have to go into compulsory cooling off period. But if such kind of responsibility is entrustedonme,iwillperformmydutieswith utmost honesty and sincerity,” he said.
The MCA, meanwhile, has decided to call for a managing committee meeting to discuss theissueaccordingtovice-presidentpvshetty.
Shah might seek legal counsel
Not everyone though seems prepared to go down without a fight. Saurashtra Cricket Association'slong-standingpresidentniranjan Shah hinted at seeking legal counsel. He even cited his constitutional rights to support his point. "We respect the Supreme Court judgement and we have to abide by that but whatever judicial thing is left we will discuss with our lawyers. I have got constitutional right which has given by Gandhiji. Constitution is written by Babasaheb Ambedkar. In democracy everyone has his lakshman-rekha ,beit parliament, judiciary or military. Otherwise if it's is not there, the democracy will not survive," said Shah.
Perhaps, one member sums up the extreme panic and cynicism that presently is running amok through the BCCI best when he says, “BCCI was not bothered since the beginning. When these recommendations came in, then only board should have gone and met Lodha Committee but back then everyone was unmoved. The cricket board has called this upon themselves. Everything is finished." Did Thakur seek such a letter?
In Monday's order, the court stated that there are two contrasting versions before them – one from BCCI general manager (administration and game development) Ratnakar Shetty and the second from Thakur.
The SC order reads: “In the response filed by Mr Shetty on behalf of BCCI, there was a specific denial that its President had requested ICC to issue a letter stating that the Committee amounted to governmental interference. On the other hand, in the affidavit which the President of BCCI filed in pursuance of the directions of this court dated 7 October 2016, he accepted having made a request to the Chairman of ICC for issuing a letter “clarifying the position which he had taken as BCCI President”.
What did Thakur state to the court?
“There was an ICC governance review committee meeting scheduled to be held in Dubai on 6th& 7th August 2016. I pointed out to the Chairman of the ICC, Mr. Shashank Manohar, that when he was the President of BCCI he had taken a view that the recommendations of the Justice Lodha committee appointing the nominee of the CAG on the Apex Council would amount to governmental interference and might invoke an action of suspension from ICC. I, therefore, requested him that he, being the ICC Chairman, can a letter be issued clarifying the position which he had taken as BCCI President. Mr. Manohar explained to me at the meeting that when the stand was taken by him, the matter was pending before this Hon’ble Court and had not been decided. However, on 18.07.2016, this Hon’ble Court delivered its judgment in the matter. In the said judgment, this Hon’ble Court has rejected the submission that the appointment of the nominee of CAG on the Apex Council would amount to governmental interference and had also held that the ICC would appreciate the appointment as it would bring transparency in the finances of the Board.”
What did Shashank Manohar tell the court-appointed committee?
“At the meeting, apart from myself and Mr Anurag Thakur, Mr Giles Clarke, Mr David Peever and Mr Imran Khwaja, who are all Directors of ICC, were present. The ICC CEO, Mr David Richardson, and ICC COO Mr Lain Higgins were also present. During the meeting, Mr Thakur pointed out to me that when I was the President of BCCI, a submission was advanced before the Supreme Court at my behest that the appointment of a nominee of the CAG on the Apex Council might amount to governmental interference and would invoke an action of suspension from the ICC. He, therefore, requested me to issue a letter to that effect in my capacity as ICC Chairman. I declined to issue such a letter and explained to him that the said submission was advanced before the Hon Supreme Court when the court was hearing the matter… I therefore explained to Mr Thakur that the issue having been decided by the Hon Supreme Court of India, which is the highest court of the country and whose judgment binds everybody, I cannot give him any such letter.”
What does Supreme court say in its order?
The conduct of the President of BCCI in seeking a letter from the President of ICC in August 2016, after the final judgment and order of this Court, is nothing but an attempt on the part of the head of BCCI to evade complying with the Order of this court. That he sought a letter is clear even from the affidavit of Mr Thakur dated 15 October 2016 (though he states that he had requested the ICC Chairman to clarify the position which he had taken as BCCI President). Even going by that version, we are constrained to note that there was absolutely no occasion for the President of BCCI to solicit any such clarification from the Chairperson of ICC in the teeth of the judgment that was delivered by this Court.
The controversial meeting in Dubai: Why is there a variance from the minutes of meeting?
Firstly, this is what the minutes say, according to the apex court order. “During the meeting with regard to the review of the constitutional provisions of ICC, it was informed by Mr Thakur that he asked Chairman ICC Mr Shashank Manohar that when he was the President of BCCI, he had taken a view that the recommendations of Justice Lodha committee appointing the nominee of the CAG on the Apex Council would amount to governmental interference and might invoke an action of suspension from ICC. It was, therefore, requested from him that he, being the ICC Chairman, could a letter be issued clarifying the position which he had taken as BCCI President. Mr Manohar, thereafter, explained that when the stand was taken by him, the matter was pending before the Supreme Court and was not decided.”
How does the Court view these minutes – was it fabricated?
“Prima facie, it would appear that these minutes had not seen the light of the day when the response by Mr Shetty to the status report of the committee was filed, and have been fabricated subsequently to lend credence to the version of Mr Thakur.
The statement that Mr Manohar was requested to clarify the position which he had taken as BCCI President is falsified by Mr Manohar’s disclosure that he was asked to give a letter in his capacity as ICC Chairman. The version of Mr Thakur that he had requested Mr Manohar that “he, being ICC Chairman, can a letter be issued clarifying the position” which he had taken as BCCI President, is belied by the disclosure which has been made by Mr Manohar. His response dated 2 November 2016 clearly indicates that during the course of the meeting at Dubai on 6 August 2016, Mr Thakur requested him to issue a letter in his capacity as ICC Chairperson that the appointment of a nominee of CAG in BCCI might amount to governmental interference, leading to action of suspension from ICC.
Prima facie, it emerges from the record that Mr Thakur did seek such a letter from the ICC Chairperson as stated by Mr Manohar. The disclosure which Mr Thakur has made in his affidavit dated 15 October 2016 is prima facie false to his knowledge. Prima facie, we also find that the minutes of the meeting of the Working Committee of BCCI which were produced before this court have been made up to lend support to the version of Mr Thakur."
What does the Court conclude on Thakur?
“Prima facie we are of the view that Mr Thakur has made statements on affidavit before this court which are false to his knowledge. A notice to show cause should be issued to Mr Thakur why he should not be proceeded with under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for having made false statements before this Court.”
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE