Special Correspondent
The Telangana High Court’s latest intervention involving five members of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) Apex Council, including Acting President Sardar Daljit Singh and Joint Secretary Basavaraju, over alleged non-compliance with court directions is more than another legal episode in an organisation that seems to have developed an extraordinary appetite for litigation.
It raises a much larger and far more uncomfortable question: what exactly has happened to the priorities of Hyderabad cricket?
An association that was once synonymous with some of the finest traditions of Indian cricket now finds itself repeatedly in the headlines for court battles, internal disputes, procedural controversies and allegations of financial irregularities, nepotism and “pay-to-play” practices. The allegations remain matters for the appropriate authorities and courts to determine. But the sheer persistence of the disputes has itself become a matter of concern.
For parents, aspiring cricketers, former players, coaches, clubs and ordinary stakeholders, the message is increasingly dispiriting: while administrators fight over who occupies which chair, who convened which meeting, whose minutes are valid and which faction controls the next move, the actual cricketer appears to be somewhere at the bottom of the priority list.
That is not how a cricket association is supposed to function.
The latest High Court episode is particularly revealing because it comes against the backdrop of an HCA already weighed down by multiple disputes and legal proceedings. At a time when Hyderabad cricket desperately needs stability, transparency and professional administration, the organisation continues to spend an astonishing amount of energy fighting internal battles.
A meeting convened a day early.
Minutes that allegedly became contentious.
A chair occupied by the “wrong” person.
A procedural decision challenged.
A notice followed by another notice.
A contempt proceeding followed by legal responses.
The details may change from case to case, but the larger pattern remains remarkably consistent: HCA appears perpetually at war with itself.
And therein lies the real tragedy.
Because every hour spent fighting over internal control is an hour not spent building cricket.
Every rupee consumed by avoidable litigation is a rupee that cannot be invested in a young cricketer.
Every administrative dispute that paralyses decision-making pushes another talented youngster towards frustration, uncertainty or, worse, away from the game altogether.
Hyderabad cricket deserves much better.
There was a time when Hyderabad was not merely another domestic cricket centre. It was a formidable talent factory. Players from Hyderabad regularly found their way into the Indian Test team. The names of M. L. Jaisimha, Abbas Ali Baig, Jayantilal, Abid Ali, Govindraj, MV Narasimha Rao, Arshad Ayub, Mohammed Azharuddin, Shivlal Yadav and VVS Lakshman, besides Venkatparhy Raju and others created an aura around Hyderabad cricket that was built on talent, discipline and a proud cricketing culture.
That aura has steadily faded.
The reasons are neither simple nor attributable to one individual or one administration. But the prolonged cycle of factionalism, allegations, litigation and administrative instability has unquestionably damaged the institution’s credibility.
And the question today is no longer merely who is right in the latest HCA dispute.
The question is: who is fighting for Hyderabad cricket?
That question becomes even more pertinent when one looks at the apparent contrast in the Association’s priorities.
HCA office-bearers seem to possess unlimited energy when it comes to defending positions, challenging colleagues and initiating legal proceedings over procedural matters. Lawyers appear to be permanently on standby. Notices fly. Replies follow. Counter-replies arrive. Courtrooms become extensions of the HCA office.
But when the issue concerns a potentially enormous financial exposure to the Association, the same sense of urgency appears remarkably difficult to locate.
There is, on record, a payment arising from old claims, counter-claims and accumulated interest involving a sum that, by reasonable estimates, could amount to roughly two months of HCA’s BCCI grant—or close to an entire year’s revenue from the TG20 tournament.
The comparison is staggering.
That kind of money is not an accounting footnote.
It represents academies.
It represents better grounds.
It represents coaching programmes.
It represents equipment.
It represents district cricket.
It represents opportunities for youngsters who may never get another chance.
It represents the difference between an ambitious cricketing ecosystem and an association merely surviving from one controversy to the next.
And yet the obvious questions remain.
Was every available legal remedy properly explored?
Was an appeal seriously considered?
Was the Association’s defence sufficiently robust?
If not, why not?
Who took the decisions?
Were the financial implications properly assessed?
And, most importantly, where was the urgency when HCA’s own money was at stake?
These questions do not amount to an allegation against the recipient of the payment. Nor should they. The underlying claim, order or payment is a matter to be dealt with through the appropriate legal and financial processes.
The legitimate public-interest question is about the HCA’s own institutional response.
If administrators can mobilise the machinery of the Association over the timing of an AGM, the validity of minutes or the occupation of an office, why should they not demonstrate equal determination when the Association’s finances are potentially affected by a major legal liability?
If there is sufficient conviction to drag fellow administrators into court over procedure, there should surely be sufficient conviction to demand accountability for decisions that could cost the Association enormous sums.
Why does personal power appear to command greater urgency than institutional money?
That is the uncomfortable question.
And it is one HCA cannot simply dismiss as another factional attack.
An association’s money belongs neither to the President nor the Secretary nor the Apex Council. It belongs to the institution—and ultimately to the game and its stakeholders.
That distinction appears to have been forgotten somewhere along the way.
The most disturbing consequence of this culture is that the ordinary cricketing stakeholder has become an unwilling spectator.
Parents who pay for their children’s training want a transparent pathway.
Young cricketers want genuine selection opportunities.
Former players want respect for the institution they represented.
Clubs want a predictable and fair system.
Coaches want professional structures.
Districts want meaningful development.
And Hyderabad cricket fans want their city to once again produce cricketers capable of representing India.
None of them care who wins the next internal power struggle.
They care who wins the next cricket match.
They care whether a talented youngster gets selected on merit.
They care whether grounds are maintained.
They care whether academies function.
They care whether district cricket actually develops players.
They care whether HCA’s resources are being used for cricket.
Unfortunately, the continuing spectacle of internal litigation sends precisely the opposite message.
There is also a larger institutional lesson here.
Courts should not become the primary arena for settling what should essentially be administrative disagreements within a sporting body. Judicial intervention is sometimes unavoidable, particularly when there are allegations of non-compliance with orders or serious governance failures. But when an association repeatedly finds itself before courts over internal functioning, it is a symptom of an organisation that has lost the ability to resolve its own affairs through credible institutional mechanisms.
The latest High Court action should therefore be treated not as another victory for one faction over another, but as a warning to the entire HCA establishment.
The message should be simple: enough.
Enough of personality clashes.
Enough of factional warfare.
Enough of turning every administrative disagreement into a legal battle.
Enough of treating the HCA office as a battlefield for influence.
Enough of making Hyderabad cricket collateral damage in an endless power struggle.
The Association urgently needs to rediscover the difference between governing cricket and governing over cricket.
The former requires accountability, transparency, professionalism and humility.
The latter produces precisely what Hyderabad cricket has been witnessing for years—internal camps, competing claims, litigation and an institution permanently distracted from its primary purpose.
There is nothing wrong with administrators defending the Association in court. In fact, they have a duty to do so whenever the institution’s legitimate interests require it.
But that duty must be consistent.
If an administrator dares to challenge a colleague over a procedural violation, he must have equal courage to ask why a major financial liability was allowed to arise or why an available legal remedy was not pursued with the same determination.
If there is outrage over an allegedly irregular meeting, there should be even greater outrage over anything that threatens the Association’s finances.
If minutes matter, money matters more.
If chairs matter, cricketers matter infinitely more.
And if winning an internal legal battle becomes more important than winning the confidence of Hyderabad’s cricketing community, then the institution has already lost the larger battle.
The HCA does not need more lawyers fighting administrators.
It needs administrators fighting for cricket.
It needs a credible governance reset.
It needs transparent financial accounting.
It needs independent scrutiny wherever allegations have been raised.
It needs professional cricket administration rather than personality-driven factionalism.
And above all, it needs to restore faith among the thousands of youngsters and families who still believe that cricket can change their lives.
The Telangana High Court’s latest intervention should therefore not be reduced to the usual HCA vocabulary of “our faction versus their faction”.
There should be no factional victory here.
There should be no celebration.
There should instead be introspection.
Because when a cricket association repeatedly finds itself in court over its own internal affairs, the biggest loser is not the President, Secretary, Apex Council member or any faction.
The biggest loser is Hyderabad cricket.
And Hyderabad cricket has already lost far too much.
For two decades, the institution’s reputation has been steadily eroded by controversies that have overshadowed its cricketing achievements. The city that once routinely supplied India’s Test team should not have to explain why its cricket administration is better known for courtrooms than for producing the next generation of international cricketers.
The answer cannot be another committee, another faction, another legal notice or another temporary truce.
It has to be a fundamental change in priorities.
Put the cricketer first. Put the institution first. Put the money where it belongs. And keep the power brokers away from the game.
Otherwise, the final nail in the coffin of Hyderabad cricket may not come from one court order, one financial dispute or one administrative controversy.
It will come from something far more damaging:
the complete loss of faith in the institution itself.
very well compiled. Hats off Shankar