N Srinivasan moves SC accusing BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur of perjury

New Delhi: As the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday rejected N Srinivasan's plea seeking clarification whether he could attend the governing body meeting in his capacity as the president of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA), the former BCCI president gave an all new twist to the case.

As per the report published in The Indian Express, Srini moved the SC seeking criminal prosecution of BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur under perjury charge over his “false affidavit” and “plethora of misleading” statements in court, referring to the application moved by the BCCI regarding his conflict of interest issue.

In a fresh plea, Srini countered two statements made by Thakur in the affidavit attached in support of the application BCCI had moved to SC.

According to the first statement, Srinivasan had barged into the Kolkata working committee meeting on August 28 and insisted upon attending it. And other one is that the BCCI had also cited alleged conflict of interest, claiming Srinivasan was also a trustee in the India Cements Shareholders Trust that owns IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings.

“The averments in the false (BCCI) application can then only be personal to Anurag Thakur, who has abused the process of this court by filing his personal false affidavit in the garb of an affidavit on behalf of the BCCI,” said Srinivasan.  

Srinivasan has also accused Thakur of sensationalising BCCI's position in his plea as he "sought to create a confusion between him and his namesake, another N Srinivasan, who is a former partner of a chartered accountancy firm in Chennai," the report says.

As the BCCI is set to choose its next president in a special general meeting on October 4, Srini's petition exposes the rift within the richest cricket board.

Srinivasan said that he has the affidavits of Anirudh Chaudhry, Treasurer of BCCI, T C Mathew, Vice President of BCCI and Jayesh George, Joint Secretary Kerala Cricket Association, about the meeting which clearly demonstrates that the account given by Thakur was "completely false".

Their affidavits stated that Srinivasan was already seated when the meeting began and nobody objected to his presence, his plea said.

Srinivasan, in his plea, also said, "Thakur intentionally gave false evidence in judicial proceedings... He has made false claims...knowing them to be false fraudulently, dishonestly, with intent to injure and to annoy the present applicant." 

"It is further submitted that it is expedient in the interest of justice that his offences be inquired into by a competent magistrate for further action," it said.

The BCCI had approached the apex court seeking clarity on the status of the sidelined former chief who had sought to attend the meeting which was postponed as the members argued over his presence. The board's plea was recently dismissed by the apex court.

Srinivasan was on January 22 barred by the apex court from contesting the BCCI President's post on the ground of conflict of interest which cropped up in view of the IPL spot-fixing scandal.

The plea sought charges against Thakur under Sections 193 (punishment for false evidence) and 209 (dishonestly making false claim in court) of the IPC, which can fetch a maximum seven years in jail.

About his being a trustee in India Cements, Srinivasan said this statement is "shocking and is a disgrace to the position held by Anurag Thakur" who, in his attempt to "sensationalise" the affidavit, sought to create a confusion between him and his namesake, another N Srinivasan, who is a former partner of a chartered accountancy firm in Chennai.

The plea termed it as a "blatant lie" on Thakur's part to say that controversial rule, 6.2.4 that allowed cricket administrators to have stakes in IPL and Champions League, was brought in to accommodate Srinivasan and his interests in Chennai Super Kings.

"While the records of the BCCI show the reasons for amendments to be unrelated to personal interests of the applicant or that of the interest of India Cements Ltd, to say that amendment was to benefit the applicant would be an egregious lie," contended Srinivasan.