Questions over institutional representation, financial transactions and governance demand credible answers
T Shesh Narayan
For nearly eight years after the Hon’ble Supreme Court ushered in sweeping governance reforms in Indian cricket through its landmark judgment in the BCCI constitutional reforms, one fundamental question continues to haunt the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA): Who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the apex court’s directives?
Is it the HCA, which is duty-bound to implement the amended Constitution? Or is it institutional members such as Canara Bank, who are equally expected to abide by the constitutional framework governing cricket administration?
These questions are not academic. They strike at the very credibility of cricket governance.
It is with this concern that I have formally addressed a representation to the management of Canara Bank and the concerned sports authorities, seeking clarity on what appears to be a prolonged violation of the Supreme Court-mandated constitutional provisions governing institutional representation in cricket associations.
The issue deserves an impartial inquiry rather than silence.
Supreme Court’s reforms were meant to end arbitrary nominations
In 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court approved and enforced the amended Constitution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014.
The intention behind the reforms was unmistakable—to introduce transparency, accountability and professionalism into cricket administration while ending arbitrary nominations and vested interests.
The amended Constitution specifically provides that certain institutional members, including the Indian Railways, Armed Forces and Association of Indian Universities, can nominate representatives only from among former cricketers elected through their respective associations of former players.
The Constitution expressly discourages the practice of governments, departments or administrative authorities nominating serving officials or employees merely because they occupy influential positions.
The underlying philosophy is simple.
Those who have actually played the game should represent cricket—not bureaucrats or administrators who have no playing credentials.
Although these provisions specifically refer to national institutional members, the spirit and intent of the Supreme Court reforms require every State Cricket Association to adopt a constitution that mirrors the BCCI Constitution.
That obligation equally extends to institutional members affiliated with State associations.
Is HCA following the Supreme Court’s mandate?
This is where the controversy begins.
According to my understanding of the constitutional provisions, HCA has continued permitting institutional representatives who are not former first-class cricketers, thereby defeating both the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court judgment.
If this understanding is correct, it raises serious questions.
Has HCA formally amended its procedures?
Has it issued directions to all institutional members?
Were institutional members informed about the eligibility criteria?
Or has the entire reform process been conveniently ignored?
These are questions only HCA can answer.
The Canara Bank representation
One specific case that requires examination relates to Canara Bank.
For nearly two decades, the institution has reportedly been represented in HCA by the same individual, Sri K. Koti Reddy.
Even after the Supreme Court reforms, the representation allegedly continued without any visible change.
This naturally gives rise to an important question.
Did Canara Bank independently examine whether its representative fulfilled the eligibility criteria under the amended constitutional framework?
Or did it merely continue the existing arrangement because HCA never insisted upon compliance?
If HCA failed to communicate the constitutional changes, the responsibility may partly lie with the association.
If, however, Canara Bank was aware of the Supreme Court directives but still continued the earlier arrangement, the institution too may have questions to answer.
What about former First-Class cricketers?
The issue becomes even more significant in light of representations reportedly received from former first-class cricketers employed by Syndicate Bank, which subsequently merged with Canara Bank.
These players believe that, under the post-reform constitutional framework, they should have been considered for representing the institution in cricket administration.
If genuine cricketing talent employed by the bank has indeed been denied representation, the matter goes beyond administrative oversight.
It concerns fairness, sporting justice and compliance with the Supreme Court’s vision of empowering former players.
Surely, those who represented the institution on the cricket field deserve greater consideration than administrative nominees.
Financial transactions raise further questions
Equally perplexing is another issue involving financial transactions.
According to records available with several affiliated clubs, Canara Bank’s Dilsukhnagar Branch reportedly transferred approximately ₹3 lakh each to more than 150 cricket clubs on July 26, 2025, pursuant to a resolution passed by the HCA General Body.
Subsequently, the entries were allegedly reversed.
Clubs were then reportedly contacted and asked to return the money.
If these facts are accurate, several obvious questions arise.
Who authorised the original transfer?
Who subsequently ordered the reversal?
Was the reversal supported by a valid resolution?
Did the bank receive written instructions from authorised HCA office-bearers?
Were banking procedures followed?
If any employee acted beyond his or her authority, accountability must follow.
Equally, if the reversal was based on lawful instructions arising from a valid legal development, the affected clubs deserve a transparent explanation.
The uncertainty has reportedly left several clubs confused, with some still receiving calls regarding the returned funds.
Such ambiguity serves nobody’s interest.
Questions over honorarium payments
Another matter requiring scrutiny concerns payments allegedly made by HCA to the same institutional representative on multiple occasions towards honorarium or remuneration for services rendered.
If the recipient is indeed a serving employee of a public sector bank, legitimate questions arise.
Were these services rendered with the knowledge and approval of the employer?
Were the payments made in accordance with applicable service rules?
Did the institution grant permission?
Were banking hours utilised?
Were all financial disclosures made wherever required?
These are not accusations but questions that demand factual answers through a transparent inquiry.
Transparency alone can restore confidence
Cricket administration cannot function on assumptions, informal practices or selective interpretations of constitutional provisions.
The Supreme Court reforms were introduced precisely to eliminate such ambiguities.
Every institution affiliated with HCA must know the rules.
Every representative must satisfy the eligibility criteria.
Every financial transaction must withstand public scrutiny.
Every payment must have proper authority.
Every constitutional provision must be implemented in both letter and spirit.
Time for an independent investigation
The matter now warrants an independent examination by the appropriate authorities.
Such an inquiry should determine whether the Supreme Court’s constitutional reforms have been faithfully implemented, whether institutional representation complies with the prescribed norms, and whether financial decisions were taken in accordance with law and established procedures.
If no irregularities are found, the inquiry will clear the names of those concerned.
If lapses are established, corrective action should follow without fear or favour.
Ultimately, this is not merely about one institution, one representative or one cricket association.
It is about preserving the integrity of cricket administration and upholding the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
When the country’s highest court lays down a governance framework, compliance cannot be optional.
The questions have been raised.
It is now for HCA, Canara Bank and the competent authorities to provide answers that inspire confidence among cricketers, clubs and the sporting fraternity. (The author is former Secretary of HCA)
