The Hyderabad Cricket Association’s latest notice postponing the Special General Meeting (SGM) scheduled for December 7, 2025 may appear routine in its wording, but its implications are far from ordinary. The circular, issued by the Acting President and citing “administrative reasons,” reflects a deeper legal reality: the truncated Apex Council cannot proceed with major decisions without complying with the supervisory mechanism imposed by the Telangana High Court.
This is the second time in recent months that such a notice has been withdrawn, reinforcing the concerns repeatedly raised by Orangenews9 about procedural violations and the absence of a lawful mandate within the HCA’s present administrative structure. Legally, the association continues to operate under the oversight of Justice Naveen Rao (Retd.), appointed by the High Court under its powers derived from Article 226 of the Constitution.
This intervention by Justice is grounded in the doctrines of institutional integrity and necessity, invoked when democratically elected office-bearers—specifically the President, Secretary, and Treasurer—either cease to hold office or are unable to discharge their duties. As per HCA Byelaw 14, which specifies the composition of the Apex Council, and Byelaw 15, which empowers the Council to take policy decisions only when fully constituted, the current truncated body does not legally possess the authority to introduce structural changes or initiate amendments. Consequently, any major decision, whether administrative or policy-related, requires the knowledge and concurrence of the Supervisory Authority appointed by the Telangana state High Court.
The proposal to convene an SGM for the purpose of amending rules and structures without fulfilling these prerequisites with ulterior motives was legally untenable from the outset. Procedurally, HCA Byelaw 21 demands strict adherence to notice periods, circulation of agendas, furnishing of draft amendments, quorum requirements, and the inclusion of all eligible members.
Failure to comply with any of these renders an SGM challengeable. Substantively, any amendment must also conform to the Supreme Court–mandated Lodha Committee reforms, which established binding norms on tenure, age caps, conflict of interest, independent committees, and systemic transparency requirements with which state associations must mandatorily align.
Attempting to introduce or revise provisions without referencing these reforms or obtaining legal vetting risks being struck down as ultra vires. Moreover, administrative law principles derived from Article 14 prohibit arbitrary or unreasonable decision-making. Issuing hurried notices for amendments without the participation of all members, without consulting the Supervisory Authority, and without resolving existing legal uncertainties fails the test of reasonableness and procedural fairness.
The more pressing concern is the reluctance displayed by certain members of the truncated Apex Council to acknowledge these legal constraints. Despite explicit High Court directions, some appear intent on exercising powers that belong only to a full, democratically elected Apex Council. Their unwillingness to seek independent legal opinion, combined with resistance to the Supervisory Authority’s oversight, has raised significant questions about the transparency and legality of their conduct.
Such behaviour not only exposes the association to potential contempt but also risks nullifying any decision taken in defiance of judicial supervision. Fortunately, recent developments suggest a gradual shift. The Acting President, who earlier appeared aligned with those pushing for unilateral decisions, now seems inclined to follow the High Court’s mandate. The repeated withdrawal of the SGM notice is a strong indicator that the Acting President has begun engaging with the Supervisory Authority and recognising the binding nature of the court’s oversight. This compliance is essential to restoring administrative stability and protecting the association from further legal setbacks.
The unanswered question, however, remains whether the Apex Council sought Justice Naveen Rao’s approval before issuing the initial amendment notice. The sequence of events strongly suggests that no such approval was obtained. If the intent now is to operate transparently within the court-mandated framework, then this compliance must extend to every area of governance, including the appointment of selection committees as governed by Byelaw 33, the monitoring of private academies and individuals whose involvement may conflict with Lodha-era norms, and the enforcement of ethical practices in selections and player pathways. Only such an approach can ensure the integrity and legitimacy of HCA’s administration during this transitional phase.
Ultimately, while the postponement may appear procedural on the surface, it marks an important legal course correction for a body that has for too long been drifting into irregularity. If the HCA leadership continues to align itself with judicial supervision, strengthens adherence to its own byelaws, and prepares for a democratically elected and fully empowered Apex Council to assume charge, the association may finally move towards meaningful reform. Until then, every major administrative step must remain anchored in legality, transparency, and the supervisory authority entrusted by the High Court—a framework that, although born out of necessity, now offers the HCA a rare opportunity to rebuild credibility and focus once again on the sport it exists to promote.
