Special Correspondent
A two-vote victory is technically a win. But in an election clouded by allegations of money power, political influence, and the decisive role of institutional votes, some within Hyderabad’s cricketing fraternity are privately asking a pointed question: Does such a narrow margin truly reflect a victory, or does it reveal how deeply contested the system has become?
The latest elections to the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) have once again revived an old debate within the state’s cricketing ecosystem—whether administrative contests meant to strengthen the game have instead become arenas where money and political influence allegedly shape outcomes.
Several stakeholders and close observers of HCA politics say the presence of nearly 30–35 institutional votes played a significant role in the final verdict. According to them, the contest may have taken a different turn without these votes. Despite the backing of influential political intermediaries, the winning candidate—who had earlier served as in-charge president for nearly two years—reportedly scraped through with just a two-vote margin against a relatively low-profile opponent, a coach-turned physical director at a private college.
The razor-thin result immediately reminded many in the fraternity of an earlier presidential election in which former HCA president Jaganmohan Rao had reportedly won by just a single vote. At that time, critics had alleged that he enjoyed the support of the then ruling political establishment and had spent significant sums during the campaign—claims that were widely discussed in cricket circles but were never formally established.
The latest contest for the Treasurer’s post produced a similarly dramatic outcome. Dr. Anil Kumar emerged victorious by a margin of two votes, prompting speculation among some members about the role of campaign spending and political proximity. These assertions, however, remain allegations that have not been formally proven.
Ahead of the polls, this e-paper had reached out to all candidates seeking their views on governance reforms. Since the newly elected body will serve only the remaining six to seven months of the current election cycle, candidates had promised swift administrative corrections and greater transparency. With the results now declared, those assurances are likely to come under scrutiny from both the cricketing fraternity and the media, which many stakeholders view as a necessary watchdog in sports governance.
The election process itself has not been entirely free from controversy. Several aggrieved members have approached the courts challenging various developments within the association. Former HCA secretary Devraj, for instance, has reportedly contested his suspension, arguing that an arrest alone cannot justify removal from office unless guilt is established by a court of law. His petition, along with other matters related to the association’s functioning, has been heard in the High Court, though some verdicts are still awaited.
Meanwhile, the composition of the new apex council has also drawn attention. The presidential post eventually went to Amarnath, who had narrowly lost in the earlier election. The Secretary’s position, according to several members, was decided without a contest, while the Treasurer’s race remained the most fiercely fought.
The elections have unfolded against a backdrop of earlier controversies surrounding the HCA. State CID officials had previously investigated alleged financial irregularities within the association. There was also a high-profile dispute with the IPL franchise Sunrisers Hyderabad, which had complained that its corporate box was locked during a disagreement over additional passes. Cases were registered against certain HCA officials in connection with the episode, though they later secured bail.
Another issue that continues to generate discussion relates to payments allegedly linked to the construction of the Uppal cricket stadium. Critics have claimed that a company associated with a political figure received about ₹67 crore from the HCA in connection with an earlier investment of around ₹4 crore in stadium construction on government-leased land. Some financial observers have informally questioned the scale of such payouts, suggesting that settlements rarely escalate to such levels under normal circumstances. Only a Central agency probe can unravel the truth.
These allegations have also been raised by Telangana Cricket Association (TCA) general secretary Guruvareddy Dharam in complaints submitted to investigating agencies and in a petition before the High Court. The matter remains under judicial consideration.
Against this contentious backdrop, the narrow Treasurer’s election result attracted particular attention. While some members speculate that political alignments and influential intermediaries may have shaped the outcome, no official findings have confirmed such claims.
At the same time, several observers note that the tight margins also reveal a deeply divided electorate within the HCA. Candidate Harinarayana reportedly secured significant backing from former players and administrators, coming close to victory despite the perceived influence of powerful factions. For many in the fraternity, this suggests that not all votes are easily swayed by financial or political pressure.
Yet another recurring concern relates to institutional votes within the HCA electorate. Many of these institutions are rarely visible in league cricket or grassroots development but appear prominently during elections. In contests decided by one or two votes, their role inevitably comes under scrutiny.
Some administrators argue that if electoral credibility is to be strengthened, institutional voting rights should be linked to measurable participation in HCA leagues or cricket development activities—an approach broadly aligned with governance reforms recommended by the Lodha Committee and later endorsed by the Supreme Court.
With the elections now concluded, attention is shifting to governance. The newly elected apex council faces immediate expectations to deliver transparency and administrative reform during its brief tenure.
Meanwhile, the Telangana Cricket Association has indicated that it may continue pursuing legal remedies if certain directives of the Bombay High Court—particularly those concerning coordination in developing cricket infrastructure outside Hyderabad—are not implemented.
Ultimately, the credibility of the HCA will depend less on narrow electoral victories and more on whether its leadership can restore confidence among players, clubs and cricket lovers who believe the association should serve the game—not power politics.
