Former Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) President Anurag Thakur submitted an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court on Thursday
Former Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) President Anurag Thakur submitted an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court on Thursday.
The apex court had on July 7 directed Thakur to file an unconditional and unequivocal apology by July 14 and had warned of contempt proceedings if the former BCCI chief did not comply.
“I, Anurag Singh Thakur, S/o Prem Kumar Dhumal, aged about 42 years, resident of 14, Janpath, New Delhi and presently at Himachal Pradesh do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under. I am the respondent in the above mentioned matter and am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and am competent to depose to the same.
“I humbly submit that it was never the intention of the deponent to undermine the majesty of this Hon’ble Court and since unintentionally some kind of misinformation or miscommunication has occurred, I unhesitatingly tender my unconditional and unequivocal apology to this Honourable Court,” Thakur said in his application to the court.
The issue is due to come up for hearing before the apex court on Friday.
Thakur will also make an appearance at Friday’s proceedings as the court had directed him to be present in person.
During the hearing on July 7, a bench comprising Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had directed Thakur to file a one-page “unequivocal and unqualified” apology as they felt that the apology offered by him earlier was not unqualified.
The Supreme Court by its January 2, 2017, order while sacking Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke as President and Secretary respectively of the country’s apex cricketing body had issued notices asking them why perjury and contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.
The two officials of the cricket board had earned the ire of the court for not candidly telling it that they had asked for a letter from the ICC that the appointment of a CAG nominee on the board amounted to government interference in its affairs.