Supreme Court Removes Ban on Former BCCI President Anurag Thakur
Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Anurag Thakur
On Thursday, the Supreme Court lifted the ban on Anurag Singh Thakur, a BJP leader and Lok Sabha MP, allowing him to engage in the activities of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The court determined that a lifelong ban on the former BCCI president was neither intended nor justified. Thakur held the position of BCCI President from May 2015 until February 2017.
Application of the 'Doctrine of Proportionality'
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant stated that this case was suitable for applying the doctrine of proportionality. The court clarified that it did not aim to impose a lifelong ban, nor was it warranted. Consequently, the court amended paragraph 25(ii) of its January 2, 2017 ruling, allowing Thakur to participate in BCCI affairs in accordance with the established rules. During the proceedings, the court acknowledged that certain directives from the January 2, 2017 judgment had already been revoked, and the current application focused solely on the restriction outlined in paragraph 25(ii). Thakur's counsel argued that the ban had been in effect for nearly nine years, and its persistence would lead to significant hardship. The bench accepted this argument and noted that Thakur had already issued an unconditional apology, which the court accepted.
Overview of the Contempt Case
In 2017, the Supreme Court issued a notice to Anurag Thakur, requesting an explanation regarding potential contempt proceedings against him. The court sought his response to allegations of perjury related to his attempt to obtain an intervention from the ICC to avoid implementing the Lodha Committee's recommendations. This inquiry stemmed from Thakur's plea concerning contempt proceedings linked to the January 2, 2017 order, which had issued a show-cause notice under the Contempt of Courts Act. The apex court had previously indicated that Thakur appeared to have committed perjury concerning his request for ICC intervention to bypass the Lodha Committee's directives. After reviewing the previous orders, the court concluded that maintaining the ban was disproportionate and unnecessary.