With the Hyderabad Cricket Association once again in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons, questions are mounting over whether the Apex Council’s latest move to invoke a disputed “nine-year rule” to remove its Secretary was lawful, transparent — or simply politically driven.
Special Correspondent
The Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) never fails to surprise — and this time, the question is not about cricket, but about transparency itself.
In a move that has raised more questions than answers, the truncated Apex Council of the HCA has reportedly invoked Clause 6(5)(f) of its Rules and Regulations to bid goodbye to its Secretary, Devraj Ramachandran, on the ground that he has completed nine years as an office-bearer.
A letter, curiously laced with words of appreciation for his services, was circulated — ironically by the same Council that had earlier expelled him, along with the President and Treasurer, after all three were arrested by the State CID for alleged financial irregularities. The trio is now out on bail.
On paper, the Council claims to have merely followed the rule book. But as several insiders point out, what’s being followed is hardly visible — the order is not even available on the Association’s official website. And that’s where the real trouble begins.
Several club secretaries have begun to question not just the decision, but the manner in which it has been taken. They allege that the Apex Council, already functioning with limited members, has turned the HCA into a closed shop, where crucial decisions are made and implemented in silence.
“If the Apex Council has acted under the Rules, why is the order not public?” asked one veteran club secretary.
The unanswered questions keep piling up:
- Was the decision circulated to all affiliated clubs as required under HCA procedure?
- Why is it not uploaded on the official website?
- Was legal opinion sought before invoking Clause 6(5)(f)?
- Was Justice Naveen Rao, who heads the High Court-appointed Supervisory Committee, informed or consulted?
- Was there even a valid quorum when this decision was taken?
Each of these questions strikes at the heart of the HCA’s credibility — a body already burdened with allegations of corruption, factionalism, and political interference.
What makes the Council’s latest action even more questionable is the legal status of the very clause it claims to have invoked. A petition challenging the nine-year restriction clause is said to be pending before the Supreme Court. If the apex court rules against it, the HCA’s “farewell handshake” to Devraj Ramachandran could easily collapse under legal scrutiny.
Worse, the Apex Council itself stands on shaky ground. With several office-bearers suspended or under investigation, its current truncated structure raises serious doubts over whether it even has the authority to make major administrative decisions. Any move made without quorum, legal experts point out, could be ultra vires — beyond its powers — and thus open to judicial challenge.
The High Court-appointed Supervisory Committee, headed by Justice Naveen Rao, was constituted precisely to ensure accountability and legality in HCA’s functioning. Yet, there is little evidence that the committee was kept in the loop about the latest decision.
If the Apex Council acted independently — without prior approval or intimation — it risks violating the spirit, if not the letter, of judicial oversight.
“This seems like a deliberate attempt to outpace judicial supervision,” said one former HCA insider. “Decisions are being taken at breakneck speed, and one wonders — who’s really pulling the strings?”
If even partly true, it points to a disturbing trend — of political power creeping into an institution already battered by legal interventions and administrative breakdown. Such interference, insiders fear, could reduce the Supervisory Committee’s role to a ceremonial one, while real decisions are taken elsewhere, behind closed doors.
Each new controversy further erodes what little credibility the body still holds. Instead of rebuilding trust among players, clubs, and fans, decisions like these only reinforce the impression that the HCA is being run on whims, not rules.
Until the Apex Council places its decisions on record, clarifies legal compliance, and reaffirms its adherence to judicial oversight, its claims of “acting by the book” will sound hollow.
For now, as one club official quipped, “The HCA may have rules — but transparency didn’t make the playing eleven.”
Clause 6(5)(f) of the Hyderabad Cricket Association’s Rules and Regulations states that no individual shall hold office as a member of the Apex Council, in any capacity, for more than nine years in total — whether continuously or in separate terms.
The intent behind the clause, introduced in line with the Lodha Committee reforms approved by the Supreme Court, was to prevent monopolisation of power within cricket associations and ensure rotation of leadership.
However, the clause has become contentious because:
- Its interpretation differs across associations. Some apply it retrospectively, counting terms before the 2018 constitutional adoption, while others don’t.
- A petition challenging its application to HCA office-bearers is pending before the Supreme Court, questioning whether it unfairly disqualifies elected representatives mid-term.
- Legal experts argue that until the apex court rules, enforcing it could amount to prejudging an unresolved issue.
Meanwhile, it is learnt that Secretary Devraj Ramachandran, now under suspension by the truncated Apex Council following his arrest and release on bail, plans to legally challenge the decision taken by Acting President Sardar Daljit Singh — reportedly under political instructions to dissolve the present body and call for fresh elections to regain control of the Association.
Our investigation reveals that Rule 15(8) of the HCA Constitution stipulates:
“Five members of the Apex Council shall form a quorum for its meetings. The President or, in his absence, the Vice-President, or in the absence of both, a member elected by those present at the meeting shall be the Chairperson. In the event of a tie, the Chairperson shall have a casting vote.”
In this case, with the Council already truncated and under judicial supervision, invoking Clause 6(5)(f) without explicit legal or judicial clearance lacks procedural sanctity. The letter reportedly circulated among select WhatsApp groups carries no formal standing unless duly recorded and notified through official channels.
Given the legal ambiguities and the Council’s questionable authority, this decision could soon find its way back — not to the cricket field, but to the courtroom.
