The Supreme Court on Monday removed Anurag Thakur from the post of BCCI President for not complying with the orders of the apex court with regards to implementation of the Lodha committee reforms.
The Supreme Court also removed Ajay Shirke from the post of Secretary.
The Lodha committee had asked the Supreme Court to appoint an observer on December 15, who would guide the BCCI in its administration, particularly with reference to the awarding of contracts, transparency norms, audit, etc., for domestic, international and IPL matches to be played hereafter.
The court had a fortnight back, while hearing the case, hinted at appointing a panel of administrators as opposed to a single administrator.
The Supreme Court of India had also hinted at instituting perjury case against BCCI president Anurag Thakur for filing a false affidavit and reserved its order on the issue.
The Supreme Court said: “BCCI case-prima facie we believe a case of PERJURY. We will launch a prosecution. Apologise if you want to escape, but even then we are not sure if we could accept apology.”
The perjury case is due to the fact that the Lodha panel had informed the court about Thakur writing a letter to ICC chief executive Dave Richardson requesting for a letter from ICC, stating whether the appointment of a CAG official — as per Lodha panel’s recommendation — amounted to government interference in BCCI.
In an email sent on November 2 by ICC Chairman Shashank Manohar to the Lodha committee, the ICC chairman wrote:
“During the ICC meeting on August 6, 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 Supreme Court when the court was hearing the matter. However, on June 18, the SC delivered its judgement in the matter and rejected the submission that the appointment of a nominee of the CAG would amount to governmental interference.”
Manohar further said that all this had transpired in the presence of some of the directors and the CEO and COO of ICC.