Apex Council: Resign or respect the SMC?

Special Correspondent

Time is running out for the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) Apex Council. Its continuation in office is now only an interim arrangement, pending formal elections. But that extension comes with considerable responsibility: addressing pending financial irregularities, examining allegations of affiliated clubs fielding teams under benami names, identifying genuine affiliated clubs and finalising the list of eligible voters.

With these issues still hanging fire, the Apex Council faces a fundamental question: should its members continue in office, cooperate with the court-appointed Single Member Committee (SMC) and allow it to take the final calls on governance, or voluntarily step aside if they cannot reconcile themselves to the arrangement?

There is a larger issue here. Those who believe they have nothing to hide should have little difficulty cooperating with judicial supervision. Equally, those against whom allegations have been raised must allow the investigative process to take its course rather than obstructing institutional reforms.

Some elected Apex Council members, particularly those challenging the court’s arrangement, need to introspect. They cannot simultaneously be litigants questioning the supervisory mechanism and beneficiaries of the very arrangement that allows them to continue in office. One cannot have the cake and eat it too.

s has consistently highlighted HCA’s governance problems and questioned its functioning over the past year and a half. The objective is not to target individuals but to ensure that cricket administration is restored to credibility, transparency and accountability. The recommendations of the Supreme Court-appointed Lodha Committee and subsequent judicial interventions cannot remain mere documents gathering dust.

The dates that matter

• June 17, 2026: Date of the SGM letter, and the day nine clubs reportedly filed an appeal challenging the court’s arrangement.
• October 17: The letter reaches HCA.
• Around October 20: The Apex Council’s three-year tenure comes to an end.
• October 29: The High Court allows the existing Apex Council to continue as an interim arrangement, with a committee under the SMC overseeing membership verification and the electoral process.

The sequence raises questions that deserve answers, particularly about the timing and purpose of the letter.

What the April 24 order actually says

The Telangana High Court, in its April 24, 2026 order in Safilguda Cricket Club vs State of Telangana (W.P. No. 21904 of 2025), declined the request for a CBI investigation and directed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Crime Branch CID. It also continued Justice (Retd.) P. Naveen Rao as the SMC to oversee HCA administration until the investigation and criminal cases reach their conclusion.

The relevant directions are significant:

• Paragraph 24: The Apex Council must obtain the SMC’s approval for its decisions and seek its guidance in all matters. The court did not direct the Council to cease functioning.
• Paragraph 25: Decisions of the SMC are final and binding on office-bearers, the Apex Council and affiliated clubs. Any grievance must be taken to the same court.
• Paragraph 26: The challenge relating to the July 2025 meeting was left to be dealt with in separate proceedings.
• Ombudsman and Ethics Officer: Both continue to discharge their respective responsibilities.

The distinction is important. The court did not dissolve the Apex Council or prohibit it from functioning. It placed its decisions under the supervisory authority of the SMC in view of the serious complaints concerning HCA’s administration.

There is also a cricketing dimension that should not be overlooked. More than 1,500 matches have reportedly been conducted this year, the State team has won two major all-India tournaments, and the TG20 tournament at Uppal attracted impressive crowds. These developments demonstrate that cricket can progress even under judicial supervision. The question, therefore, is not whether HCA can function under the arrangement, but whether its administrators are willing to make it work.

October 29: A roadmap to elections

Six months later, the High Court provided a further direction for taking the process forward.

The October 29 order envisages a committee under the SMC to monitor implementation of the 2023 recommendations of the Supreme Court-appointed committee. These include age and tenure restrictions for member clubs and audits of member associations. The committee will also oversee the pre-election process.

The Apex Council is permitted to continue, but only as an interim administrative arrangement until membership verification is completed and elections are conducted.

In simple terms, the court wants the voters’ list cleaned up before the next election. Genuine clubs must be identified, questionable memberships examined and the electoral process made credible.

Every month lost in litigation or administrative wrangling is another month added to the wait for an elected and legitimate administration.

Two positions, one contradiction

The Apex Council’s position presents an uncomfortable contradiction.

• It challenges the court-supervised arrangement, yet continues in office because of that very arrangement. Can it oppose an order in court while simultaneously enjoying its benefits?
• If SMC supervision is unacceptable, why not voluntarily step aside? If the arrangement is legitimate enough to permit continuation, why resist its authority?
• Two office-bearers have reportedly received contempt notices in proceedings before the court. Is this the kind of institutional example HCA wishes to set?

These are not trivial questions. HCA has suffered enough from prolonged disputes, competing claims and administrative uncertainty. Its office-bearers must demonstrate that institutional interests come before personal positions.

Why this letter, and why now?

The timing of the SGM letter also calls for clarification.

• A letter reportedly signed by members on June 17 reached HCA only on October 17, just days before the Apex Council’s tenure ended. Why the four-month delay? Were the signatories aware of the circumstances in which it would eventually be used?
• Where were these demands during the preceding year? Why was there no comparable urgency in seeking an AGM or proposing amendments before the July 31 deadline?
• More importantly, what exactly are the proposed rule changes? Whose interests do they serve, and will they strengthen HCA’s institutions or merely protect the positions of a few individuals?

The clubs and their representatives deserve transparent answers. Rule changes cannot become instruments for settling administrative scores or securing individual advantages.

Eleven steps to end the HCA drama

Complaints are easy to make. Building a credible institution requires commitment. Instead of allowing the dispute to drag on, the SMC, Apex Council and affiliated clubs should consider a practical 11-point roadmap:

1. End unnecessary litigation: Withdraw challenges against the court’s supervisory arrangement and seek approvals through the prescribed process rather than pursuing stays and prolonged disputes.
2. Monthly coordination: The SMC should hold a structured monthly meeting with the Apex Council, with minutes circulated within three days.
3. Define responsibilities: Establish a written division of duties — the SMC supervises, the Apex Council advises, the Secretary implements and the Treasurer oversees payments.
4. One official voice: Designate a single authorised spokesperson to prevent contradictory statements and competing press releases on the same issue.
5. Timely payments: Ensure coaches and support staff receive their salaries on a fixed date every month, without being caught in administrative disputes.
6. Financial transparency: Publish budgets, expenditure statements and audited accounts on the HCA website.
7. Fair selections: Make selection criteria public, identify the selection panels and publish team lists transparently.
8. Election calendar: Announce a time-bound schedule for membership verification, finalisation of the voters’ list and elections.
9. Transparent amendments: Any proposed changes to the rules must follow the AGM procedure, with draft amendments circulated at least 21 days in advance.
10. Avoid conflicts of interest: No office-bearer should participate in decisions concerning matters in which he or she has a personal interest.
11. Full disclosure: Every club representative, signatory and litigant should submit a written declaration to the SMC detailing the clubs represented or controlled by them, relevant pending investigations and the funding of litigation wherever applicable.

What does the Apex Council legitimately expect?

The Council may have legitimate concerns about clarity of responsibilities, consultation and transparency in decision-making. These should not be dismissed merely because judicial supervision is in place.

But there are practical answers.

There is no reason why these safeguards cannot coexist with the court’s directions.

So, should the Apex Council resign?

The decision ultimately rests with its members. But there are three possible courses of action.

First, cooperate. Accept the judicial arrangement, work with the SMC and help restore HCA’s credibility. This is undoubtedly the most constructive option.

Second, step aside with dignity. If members believe they cannot function under the existing supervisory framework, they should consider voluntarily relinquishing their positions and allowing the court-directed process to proceed without further confrontation.

Third, continue the confrontation. But they must be prepared to face the consequences — further litigation, possible contempt proceedings, delayed elections and, most importantly, a further erosion of confidence among players and affiliated clubs.

What cannot be an acceptable fourth option is to challenge the court’s arrangement while retaining the benefits of the very interim arrangement that allows them to remain in office.

What can member clubs do?

The affiliated clubs need not remain silent spectators. They have a responsibility to demand accountability.

• Seek the budget and audited accounts covering the Apex Council’s tenure from the SMC.
• Ask their representatives whether their clubs endorsed the June 17 letter and, if so, what precisely they agreed to.
• Demand clarity on proposed rule amendments and their implications for membership and voting rights.
• Take a considered position on the 11-point roadmap and communicate it through their respective club committees.

Silence, too, has consequences. Clubs cannot complain about the state of HCA while remaining indifferent to decisions that shape its future.

Ultimately, cricketers do not care who occupies which chair or who wins the next round of litigation. They want tournaments conducted on schedule, coaches and support staff paid on time, selections made fairly and genuine opportunities for players across Telangana.

Everything else is administrative drama.

Positions will change. Office-bearers will come and go. Cases will eventually be decided. But HCA must survive as an institution worthy of its cricketing legacy.

The Apex Council has a choice: cooperate with the SMC and become part of the reform process, or step aside and allow the court-directed exercise to reach its logical conclusion.

The question every office-bearer and affiliated club must ask before taking the next step is simple: Does this decision help Telangana cricket, or does it merely protect somebody’s position?

That should be the only test that matters.