N Srinivasan seems unwilling to let go of BCCI without a fight © Getty Images
N Srinivasan seems unwilling to let go of BCCI without a fight © Getty Images

New Delhi: N Srinivasan on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court accusing the BCCI Secretary Anurag Thakur of committing an offence of perjury before the top court for making “plethora” of “misleading” statements against him including that he had “barged” into a meeting of the cricket board’s working committee in Kolkata on August 28. Srinivasan, who was barred by the apex court from officiating at the helm of affairs of BCCI in the wake of conflict of interest issue arising for owing an IPL team, said the Board in the application filed by it seeking clarification whether he can attend the meetings of the BCCI, Thakur has filed a false affidavit relating to the August 28 meeting which was adjourned sine die.

The former BCCI President has sought action under Sections 193 (punishment for false evidence) and 209 (dishonestly making false claim in court) of the IPC against Thakur, for his affidavit in which he has also referred to the issue of conflict of interest by mentioning the contents of of the India Cements Shareholders Trust including that Srinivasan was the trustee. He claimed the BCCI Secretary has also made wrong statement in the affidavit about the amendment to the Rule 6.2.4, which was struck down by the apex court judgement on January 22 this year.

“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 while referring to the statement in which alleged conflict of interest was cited against him for being the trustee in India Cements Shareholders Trust that owns IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings.

Srinavasan claimed that as he was sitting in the meeting and the then President had arrived 30 minutes late and the meeting adjourned sine die without any discussion. Therefore it would be wrong to suggest that he had barged into the meeting. 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.