Our Correspondent
Hyderabad: Nearly a decade after the Supreme Court accepted the Lodha Committee’s reforms, the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) remains under judicial supervision, with questions over governance and club memberships refusing to go away. The association rewrote its constitution following the Supreme Court’s August 9, 2018, judgment, while its 2018 Memorandum abolished proxy voting to ensure that voting rights remained with genuine members. The BCCI’s Committee of Administrators, too, made it clear that voting rights belonged to genuine cricketing clubs.
Yet, in 2023, the Supreme Court appointed retired Justice L. Nageswara Rao to oversee HCA’s elections and address its governance mess. In April 2026, the Telangana High Court ordered a CID investigation into alleged irregularities and placed the association under the supervision of Justice (Retd.) P. Naveen Rao.
Now, a letter bearing the name of a historic Hyderabad cricket club has raised a question that HCA can no longer afford to leave unanswered: Was the Nizam Cricket Club renamed Deccan Arsenal in 2016-17, and, if so, who authorised the change?
The Letter That Raises Questions
A letter dated October 28, 2026, on the letterhead of the Nizam Cricket Club and signed by its Secretary, Dr. Faheem Uddin Khaja, has been addressed to Justice (Retd.) P. Naveen Rao, with copies to HCA’s Ombudsman, Ethics Officer and CEO. Styled as an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it seeks records relating to the club’s alleged renaming.
According to the letterhead, the Nizam Cricket Club was founded by Prince Imdad Jah, son of the last Nizam, Mir Osman Ali Khan. It identifies Prince Dilshad Jah, described as the Nizam’s grandson, as the club’s present President and states that the club is registered as a society under No. 868 of 2016.
The letter alleges that Deccan Arsenal secured HCA affiliation in 2016-17 not as a new entrant but through the renaming of the Nizam Cricket Club. It further alleges that the change was processed during the tenure of the then HCA Secretary against a payment of ₹25,000 described as a “name changing fee”.
It also raises questions about the subsequent representation of the club by two individuals before HCA and in court proceedings.
These remain allegations, not established findings. Those concerned must have an opportunity to respond. But the central issue is verifiable: either HCA has records documenting the change, or it does not.
Six Sets of Records, One Fundamental Question
The letter seeks certified copies of the original affiliation or name-change application, the receipt and particulars of the ₹25,000 cheque, the relevant General Body and Apex Council minutes, any resolution or order authorising the change, the office-bearers and membership details submitted by Deccan Arsenal, and HCA’s rules governing new affiliations and changes of club names.
These are not peripheral documents. Together, they should establish whether the change was requested by the legitimate club, approved by the competent authority and recorded in accordance with HCA’s rules.
If the renaming was regular, the documentary trail should settle the matter. If the records are missing, incomplete or inconsistent, HCA must explain why.
The underlying principle is straightforward: a club’s identity and voting rights cannot legitimately be transferred merely because an individual claims authority to do so. The consent of the club’s members and compliance with the association’s rules are central to establishing the validity of any such change.
Why One Club Name Matters
In HCA, a member club is not merely a name on a register; it carries a vote. The General Body elects the Apex Council, approves accounts and decides amendments to the association’s rules. A voters’ list reported in 2019 contained approximately 215 members with voting rights. In such a limited electorate, every vote can matter.
If the alleged renaming was not properly authorised, questions could arise over votes cast in Deccan Arsenal’s name since 2016-17, the authority of individuals who represented either club, and the legitimacy of the membership currently attached to that identity.
Any implications for past elections or court proceedings would, of course, depend on the evidence and the applicable law. No conclusion should be drawn before the relevant records are examined.
There is also a wider institutional concern. If one club’s name could be changed without a demonstrable resolution and proper approval, HCA must establish whether similar changes occurred elsewhere. A transparent review of all club name changes since 2016-17 would help prevent selective scrutiny and settle recurring disputes.
RTI Is Not the Real Issue
Whether HCA is legally obliged to disclose these records under the RTI Act may be contested. But that debate should not become an excuse to avoid examining the substance of the complaint.
The letter has also been marked to HCA’s internal oversight authorities. An association operating under court supervision should be able to establish the legitimacy of its own membership records without allowing a dispute to become another prolonged round of litigation.
The timing makes the matter more urgent. With HCA’s Apex Council term having ended and elections due, a disputed club identity could become the basis for another challenge to the electoral roll. The association, already burdened by prolonged litigation, cannot afford another avoidable controversy.
Open the File, Settle the Question
Justice (Retd.) P. Naveen Rao’s Supervisory Committee should call for the complete 2016-17 file, including the relevant resolutions, correspondence and payment records. The Nizam Cricket Club, those who have represented Deccan Arsenal, and the office-bearers concerned at the time should be given a fair hearing.
Pending verification, the disputed membership and its voting entitlement should be dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules and directions of the competent authority. HCA should also publish a record of club name changes, supported by the resolutions authorising them. If the evidence indicates financial or documentary irregularities, the matter should be referred to the appropriate authority.
For the Nizam Cricket Club, this is a claim to its identity. For whoever holds the disputed membership, it is an opportunity to establish its legitimacy. For HCA, it is a test of institutional accountability.
A club may change its name. But when that name carries a vote, the change must rest on documented authority, not assertion. HCA must open the file—and let the records speak.
Editorial note: This report is based on a letter dated October 28, 2026, bearing the Nizam Cricket Club’s letterhead, and publicly available court orders and reports. The allegations concerning the 2016-17 affiliation, payment and representation of either club have not been established by any finding cited here. No wrongdoing is attributed to any individual or club. Those concerned are invited to respond, and any response received will be given due consideration.
