Our Special Correspondent
The controversy over the non-inclusion of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) in the draft electoral roll for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) AGM on September 18 has finally acquired some clarity—and the explanation is far more serious than the rumour mills would have us believe.
The BCCI Electoral Officer has categorically informed an affiliated club secretary that HCA’s representative application was submitted two days after the stipulated deadline and, under the BCCI Election Rules, could not be accepted.
The clarification came in response to a representation from Ramakrishna Udupa, Secretary of Classic Cricket Club, who sought to know why HCA, a founder member of the BCCI, had not found a place in the draft electoral roll. Instead of resorting to speculation or rushing to the courts, Udupa did what every responsible affiliated club should do—he went directly to the competent authority and sought a factual clarification.
The response is unambiguous.
According to the Electoral Officer, the BCCI had issued its election notification to all State Cricket Associations on August 25, prescribing 6 pm on August 31 as the deadline for filing applications to nominate representatives. The draft electoral roll was subsequently uploaded on September 1. The officer stated that 31 State Cricket Associations had submitted their applications within the prescribed timeline.
HCA, however, submitted its representative application two days after the deadline.
More importantly, the BCCI Electoral Officer pointed out that the 2026 election rules contain no provision to entertain or condone such a delay. Consequently, the HCA representative application was rejected.
That one communication effectively demolishes much of the speculation surrounding the issue.
Orangenews9 had already raised precisely this possibility in its report, “BCCI adds salt to HCA wounds”, questioning whether HCA’s omission could have resulted from procedural non-compliance or delayed submission. The BCCI’s official response has now provided the missing piece of the puzzle.
This is therefore not a question of the BCCI arbitrarily “denying” HCA its rightful representation. Nor does the communication suggest that HCA was singled out. It says the deadline applied to all and that the rules did not permit an exception.
The uncomfortable question, consequently, shifts from the BCCI to HCA’s administration: Why was the nomination not filed within the prescribed deadline?
That question deserves a transparent answer from those responsible for the Association’s affairs.
HCA may indeed be a founder member of the BCCI and may have a proud cricketing legacy. But institutional legacy cannot substitute for procedural compliance. Rules are meaningful only when they apply equally to everyone.
Credit must also go to Udupa for seeking clarification through the appropriate channel. At a time when HCA has been mired in prolonged disputes, allegations, competing claims and litigation, this is precisely the approach that should become the norm—read the rule book, ask the competent authority and seek answers before making allegations.
Sadly, HCA’s functioning has often appeared to suffer from the opposite culture: competing factions, public accusations, hurried decisions and court battles. Even its general body proceedings have frequently been criticised as lacking the deliberative seriousness expected of a major cricketing institution. An AGM should be a forum where affiliated clubs debate, question and arrive at decisions—not merely assemble to complete a quorum.
The latest BCCI communication should therefore be treated not merely as an explanation of why HCA lost its place in the draft electoral roll, but as a wake-up call.
Those entrusted with running HCA must understand that procedural lapses have consequences. Those who claim to defend the Association must also have the courage to question its administration when it fails. And affiliated clubs must realise that their responsibility does not end with attending an AGM or exercising a vote.
The time has come for HCA’s clubs to demand greater transparency, collective responsibility and strict adherence to its own rule book and the rules governing its relationship with the BCCI.
The BCCI has now put the facts on record.
The rumours can stop. The questions, however, must begin—with those responsible for the two-day delay.
