Special Correspondent
For an institution that has lived in controversy for nearly two decades, the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) still manages to find newer depths. This time, however, the rot has not been exposed by a rival faction, a police raid, or a court order—but by a letter written by one of its own former office-bearers to the Telangana High Court–appointed Ombudsman.
Venkateshwaran, a former Secretary of the HCA and a person widely regarded as relatively upright in a deeply compromised ecosystem, has shot off a formal communication to Justice Naveen Rao (Retd.), the Ombudsman appointed by the High Court to oversee the day-to-day affairs of the association. The contents of that letter, restrained in language but serious in implication, threaten to lift the lid on what appears to be yet another attempt to subvert process, legality, and institutional integrity within the HCA.
To place this episode in context, it must be stated—without exaggeration—that HCA’s governance record over the past 15–20 years has been nothing short of dismal. From the construction of the Uppal stadium on leased government land, to repeated allegations of financial impropriety, manipulation of elections, and abuse of office, the association has rarely been out of controversy.
Several of these allegations have not merely remained in the realm of speculation. Over the years, both state and central investigative agencies have examined aspects of HCA’s functioning. Multiple matters remain sub judice before the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
The situation reached a nadir when the Supreme Court–appointed Ombudsman, Justice L. Nageshwar Rao (Retd.), submitted a detailed report after forensic audits. His findings reportedly upheld several allegations, including serious governance lapses and blatant conflicts of interest among affiliated clubs. In an unprecedented move, as many as 57 affiliated clubs were suspended from participating in HCA elections for two years, a damning indictment of how deeply compromised the system had become.
As if that record were not damning enough, the recent controversy involving IPL franchise Sunrisers Hyderabad further exposed HCA’s dysfunction. Allegations of harassment, unreasonable demands for complimentary passes, and even the locking of an enclosure earmarked for the franchise until hours before a match, brought national embarrassment.
The matter escalated when the Telangana Chief Minister took suo motu cognisance and directed the State Vigilance Department to probe the complaint. The inquiry reportedly found prima facie substance in the franchise’s allegations. The political overtones of the episode were hard to miss, especially since the HCA President was perceived to have proximity to the Chief Minister’s political rival.
The result was dramatic: the State CID arrested the HCA President, Secretary, and Treasurer. Though the three later secured bail, the episode further eroded whatever little credibility the association had left.
Following these arrests, the already weakened and truncated Apex Council of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) proceeded to suspend the arrested office-bearers. Whether this action carried a clear legal sanction remains a matter of serious debate. Equally puzzling is the fact that the suspended officials did not choose to legally challenge their removal—an omission that has prompted speculation in certain quarters about possible external pressures or conditions allegedly linked to their bail. It must, however, be emphasised that such claims remain unproven.
What is indisputable is that governance within the HCA thereafter slipped into an even greyer zone.
Against this backdrop, attention shifted to a far more sensitive and consequential issue—the proposed amendment or redrafting of the HCA Constitution. As a matter of record, the Apex Council, through a letter signed by the present Acting President, Sardar Daljit Singh, had apparently envisaged the constitution of a nine-member Redrafting Committee, naming Dr Anil as its Chairman. However, contrary to this indication, the committee was eventually confined to just five members.
With a High Court–appointed Ombudsman in place, any move to amend or redraft the constitution ideally demands impeccable transparency, procedural rigour, and institutional consensus. Yet, according to a widespread perception within cricketing circles, political interest in the HCA—often described as a “golden goose” owing to the clout and leverage that control over cricket administration confers—has not diminished, notwithstanding the change in the political regime in the state.
Reports suggest that a senior cabinet minister is believed to be “guiding” the truncated Apex Council towards convening a Special General Body Meeting to amend the Constitution—an exercise whose legal sustainability is, at best, questionable.
As part of this process, a Constitution Redrafting Committee was formed, with Dr. Anil Kumar, a club secretary, assuming the role of chairman. His own credentials and past associations, it is alleged in some quarters, have been under scrutiny for unrelated reasons—claims that remain matters of public discussion rather than adjudicated fact.
What has further raised eyebrows is the composition of this committee itself. Within cricketing circles, it is being described less as a reform body and more as a “parking lot”—a convenient space to accommodate favoured individuals and settle old obligations. Familiar names, long regarded as institutional constants, have once again surfaced. Among them is Vinod Ingle, a perennial presence in HCA committees, whose inclusion is being questioned due to an apparent conflict of interest—given his simultaneous role as manager of the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy team and involvement in multiple other capacities. Even more troubling is the presence of individuals against whom direct allegations of corruption have been levelled in the past, now finding themselves entrusted with key responsibilities in a committee ostensibly meant to clean up governance. The optics, at the very least, are disturbing.
Dr. Anil reportedly constituted a five-member committee and initially included S. Venkateshwaran, citing his legal background and experience as a former HCA Secretary. Known for being blunt and occasionally defiant even toward his own colleagues, Venkateshwaran was not universally popular—but was widely regarded as someone unlikely to rubber-stamp dubious proposals.
What followed raises troubling questions.
According to Venkateshwaran’s letter, sub-committee meetings were convened without his knowledge or notice, and subsequently, his name—along with another member’s—was removed from the committee without any communication or explanation.
More importantly, he points out that his name was proposed and approved by the General Body at the AGM, whereas others currently functioning in the committee, including Dr. Anil himself, were not so approved.
These are not minor procedural lapses. If accurate, they strike at the heart of institutional legitimacy.
The Letter That Could Open Pandora’s Box
In his measured yet firm letter to Justice Naveen Rao, Venkateshwaran requests the Ombudsman to:
- Review the video recording of the AGM
- Examine how the committee was reconstituted
- Restore a constitutionally valid and bona fide committee free of ulterior motives
The language is restrained, but the implications are profound. The allegation is not merely of discourtesy—but of systematic sidelining of inconvenient voices to push through amendments that may not withstand legal scrutiny.
Given Venkateshwaran’s track record of opposing questionable proposals—even at personal cost—his removal is being viewed by many within the cricketing fraternity as deliberate rather than accidental.
Whether this episode marks another chapter in HCA’s long saga of misgovernance or becomes a turning point depends largely on the response of the High Court-appointed Ombudsman.
If the concerns raised are ignored, it would only reinforce the perception that even court-mandated oversight is being undermined by entrenched interests. If examined seriously, however, this letter could unravel a chain of actions that expose yet another attempt to hijack cricket administration under the garb of “reform”.
One thing is certain: the worms have begun to crawl out, and the coming days may reveal far more than HCA’s powerbrokers are comfortable with.
For an association that has tested judicial patience repeatedly, this may well be the moment of reckoning.
