Today, On 5th February, The Supreme Court lifted the ban on Anurag Singh Thakur from associating with the BCCI after hearing his plea seeking removal of the restriction imposed through paragraph 25(ii) of the 2017 order implementing the Lodha Committee reforms framework.
The Supreme Court heard in detail the application moved by BJP MP Anurag Thakur, who sought the lifting of the ban imposed on him through paragraph 25(ii) of the 2017 Supreme Court order concerning the implementation of the Lodha Committee reforms in the BCCI.
The matter was taken up by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
During the hearing, counsel for the applicant submitted,
“My Lords, this application was filed in 2021 by Mr. Anurag Thakur, who was then the President.”
He pointed out that on 2nd January 2017, the Supreme Court made three observations against him at a time when the recommendations of the Lodha Committee were required to be implemented. According to him, the Court’s perception then was that the reforms were not being implemented in right earnest.
He also highlighted that Mr. Thakur was the President but,
“He was neither impleaded by name nor was he personally appearing before this Hon’ble Court. .”
Referring to the consequential directions, counsel stated,
“On this basis, at page 39 of the order, three directions were issued.”
He emphasised that the first direction required Mr. Thakur “to cease and desist from being associated with the BCCI henceforth,” and noted that the amicus had no objection on this aspect.
The counsel then explained that,
“My Lords, the order dated 2nd January 2017 contained three directions. First, that Mr. Anurag Thakur, then President of the BCCI, and Mr. Ajay Shrirke, Secretary, shall forthwith cease and desist from being associated with the working of the BCCI. Secondly, a notice to show cause was issued to Mr. Thakur as to why proceedings should not be initiated under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thirdly, a notice to show cause was issued as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated.”
Counsel argued that almost a decade had passed and told the Court,
“My Lords, it has now been nearly ten years. I have remained completely out of the BCCI during this entire period. A direction of this nature cannot be punitive for life, particularly when the foundational proceedings themselves no longer survive. Fairness demands closure.”
He also clarified that he was not attempting to seek anything beyond what the Court had already recognised, and submitted,
“Counsel: I am not pressing anything beyond what the Court has already held. I am only requesting that the orders of this Hon’ble Court be read as a continuum beginning with concern, followed by explanation, and ending in closure. That closure must be complete.”
Representing the Lodha Committee, counsel reminded the Court of the basis of the reforms and submitted,
“My Lords, three reports were submitted by the Justice Lodha Committee. All three reports categorically recorded that the reform process was being repeatedly thwarted, and that permitting the same individuals to continue in office would defeat the very purpose of the reforms. The recommendation was clear: they could not be allowed to remain in the saddle if implementation was to succeed.”
He asked the Bench to consider the orders dated 7th October 2016 and 17th October 2016, along with the continuation orders.
He stated that,
“My Lords, as a Court of record, it is only fair that the Supreme Court is reminded of the full sequence of what it has done in the past. If that background is not otherwise being placed before Your Lordships, I consider it my duty to place it accurately and dispassionately on record. Nothing more, and nothing less.”
He also recalled that through earlier directions,
“This Hon’ble Court directed the BCCI and all concerned to fully cooperate with the Justice Lodha Committee and to act in aid of its directives.”
He explained that the Court had anticipated possible impediments and therefore gave the Committee liberty to approach the Court with status reports as needed.
The Bench responded that,
“This Court does not pass orders of this nature unless the background is compelling and the material before it is substantial.”
Continuing with his submissions, counsel for the Lodha side remarked,
“Judges and counsel may come and go, My Lords, but institutions must endure. That is the only point I wished to make. If the weight of the situation fell on one individual at that time, it was because he held the office of President. Nothing more.”
When the Bench dictated its order, it recorded that the application was moved by Anurag Thakur and revisited the 2017 order. It observed that in the order dated January 2, 2017, certain directions were issued based on the assumption that the office-bearers of the BCCI were failing to implement the Lodha Committee reforms accepted by the Court.
The order stated that,
“The meaningful directions came to be issued on account of the failure of the office-bearers of BCCI and its affiliated state associations to meet the norms recommended by the Lodha Committee, which were accepted by this Court. These recommendations pertain to sweeping reforms in the Constitution, stroke composition, stroke functioning of the BCCI.”
The Court also noted that Mr. Thakur filed a reply affidavit in 2017. It recalled that,
“By the order dated 14th July 2017, read with the order dated 7th July 2017, this Hon’ble Court accepted the explanation and unconditional apology of the applicant and recorded that directions 3 and 4 in paragraph 25 of the judgment dated 2nd January 2017 stood withdrawn.”
The Court recorded the concern that the prohibition imposed on him had continued for more than nine years, and that if it was not lifted, it would cause “severe hardship and prejudice to him”.
In its final direction, the Supreme Court issued a clear order stating,
“Mr. Anurag Thakur, shall be free to participate in the affairs of the BCCI, strictly in accordance with its rules and regulations.”
In 2017, the highest court dismissed Thakur from his role as President and initiated contempt and perjury proceedings against him. Although these proceedings were eventually discontinued, he was prohibited from being associated with the BCCI. This case was connected to the enforcement of the Lodha committee recommendations.
Anurag Thakur, who assumed office as BCCI president in May 2016, opposed several of these reforms. The Court noted continued resistance and delay by the BCCI in complying with its directions. The situation escalated when Thakur’s administration approached the International Cricket Council (ICC), suggesting that certain reforms such as the inclusion of a Comptroller and Auditor General nominee could be perceived as governmental interference, which ICC regulations discourage.
On 2 January 2017, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court removed Anurag Thakur from the BCCI presidency and ordered him to refrain from any involvement in the Board’s affairs. Simultaneously, the Court issued a show-cause notice initiating contempt of court and perjury proceedings against him.
Case Title: BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA Versus CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR AND ORS.|C.A. No. 4235/2014
Read Live Coverage
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
