By Shesh Narayan
As a former Secretary of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), I watch recent developments with deep concern and a sense of disquiet. The state police have acted swiftly in arresting former HCA President Jaganmohan Rao, the Treasurer, and later the Secretary, on allegations of misappropriation of funds. Yet, the selective nature of this action raises troubling questions about consistency, fairness, and the application of justice.
The arrests stemmed from a complaint reportedly linked to the IPL franchise Sunrisers Hyderabad, which uses the Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium as its home ground. What began as a dispute over access to a designated box—allegedly locked after the franchise declined to oblige requests for additional passes—eventually led investigators to uncover broader financial irregularities. These findings prompted custodial action against the President, Secretary, and Treasurer.
However, what remains unexplained is why other key office-bearers—specifically Vice President Daljit Singh, Joint Secretary Basavaraj, and Sunil Agarwal—have not been subjected to similar scrutiny. Publicly available records and minutes suggest that these individuals were signatories to decisions that enabled the release of funds to affiliated clubs, a move that has since become controversial.
The decision to disburse funds was reportedly taken at a hastily convened Executive Committee meeting, called at short notice and in the absence of the then-suspended Secretary, Devraj. According to information available to me, Devraj was asked to associate himself with the process but chose to abstain, citing procedural and ethical concerns. That decision, by itself, should have prompted closer examination of the circumstances under which approvals were granted.
More importantly, all office-bearers present at the Annual General Meeting held on June 28, 2025, endorsed the accounts placed before the house. If alleged financial irregularities are serious enough to warrant arrests of some functionaries, can those who approved the same accounts be treated as entirely blameless? This is not an assertion of guilt but a question of equal accountability.
Complaints relating to these decisions are reportedly pending with the state police. The delay—or reluctance—in registering cases against other signatories creates an impression of selective enforcement, which ultimately weakens public confidence in the investigative process. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
There is also the larger issue of governance. Orders passed earlier by the Hon’ble Justice L. Nageshwar Rao had resulted in the disqualification of 57 clubs. If similar standards are to apply uniformly, the role and eligibility of office-bearers involved in disputed decisions must be examined without fear or favour.
The adjourned AGM convened by the same individuals, as well as certain appointments made during that period, are matters that deserve independent scrutiny. These are not personal grievances but institutional concerns that strike at the credibility of cricket administration in Hyderabad.
Ultimately, faith in the rule of law rests on impartiality. One hopes that appropriate judicial oversight—if necessary, even at the level of the Hon’ble Supreme Court—will ensure that accountability is comprehensive, evidence-based, and free from selective application.
(The author is a former Secretary of the Hyderabad Cricket Association.)
