Special Correspondent
The Telangana High Court’s latest order in the Classic Cricket Club case may have brought procedural closure to the litigation, but it has hardly brought closure to the controversy surrounding the 57 Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) clubs whose voting rights and participation in General Body meetings remain under a cloud.
In what many stakeholders expected to be a decisive judicial determination, the High Court has essentially left the core questions to the existing Supervisory Committee headed by retired Acting Chief Justice P. Naveen Rao. The Court did not declare the so-called “Adjourned 87th AGM” valid, nor did it uphold the exclusion of the 57 clubs. Equally, it did not grant the clubs the reliefs they had sought. Instead, the contentious issues have effectively been left open for consideration through the supervisory and investigative mechanisms already operating over the HCA.
That distinction is important.
Classic Cricket Club and the other affected clubs had challenged the Adjourned 87th AGM, their exclusion from that meeting and decisions allegedly taken by the Apex Council on July 15 and 18, 2025 without the required quorum. Their contention was straightforward: if they remained legitimate members of the Association, on what basis could they be prevented from attending General Body meetings, participating in deliberations and exercising voting rights?
The High Court has not answered that question on merits.
Instead, it has relied on the broader framework created in the Safilguda Cricket Club case. In its April 24, 2026 judgment, the Court directed an independent investigation into alleged administrative, financial and governance irregularities in the HCA and continued Justice Naveen Rao’s supervision over the Association pending investigation and criminal proceedings. The judgment also made it clear that disputes concerning compliance with HCA bye-laws and earlier meetings could be pursued in appropriate proceedings or considered during the investigation.
For the 57 clubs, therefore, the latest order is neither a defeat nor a victory. Their principal grievances remain alive.
If the Supervisory Committee ultimately finds that their exclusion was contrary to the HCA’s rules, the consequences could be significant. Their participation in General Body affairs could be restored, while decisions taken during meetings from which they were improperly excluded could come under scrutiny. Questions relating to appointments, resolutions, bye-law changes and other consequential decisions could then acquire an entirely different significance.
Conversely, the HCA office-bearers who supported or implemented the exclusion cannot claim that the High Court has judicially endorsed their action. It has not. The Court has simply declined to undertake a separate adjudication on those questions in this proceeding.
That leaves Justice Naveen Rao’s committee with a considerable responsibility.
The larger irony is that the HCA continues to operate under judicial supervision more than a year after the High Court first expanded Justice Naveen Rao’s role from supervising cricketing activities to overseeing the functioning of the Association. The Court’s April 2026 order went even further, placing the Apex Council under his supervision while the investigation proceeds.
For an institution meant to be run by elected cricket administrators, this is hardly a healthy administrative picture.
But the responsibility for reaching this stage cannot simply be placed at the judiciary’s door. Repeated factional battles, allegations of procedural violations, disputes over elections and General Body meetings, and continuing litigation have steadily eroded the space for normal self-governance. The HCA’s own internal divisions have effectively invited judicial intervention.
The investigative dimension is equally important. The High Court ordered the constitution of an SIT under a senior police officer to examine alleged irregularities in the HCA’s administrative, managerial and financial affairs, with liberty to examine earlier reports and material already available. Importantly, the Court expressly said that the investigation must determine the allegations in accordance with law and that it was not itself expressing an opinion on the culpability of individuals.
That means allegations cannot be treated as convictions. But neither can an investigation ordered by a constitutional court be allowed to disappear into bureaucratic inertia.
The same applies to the complaints and reports accumulated over years, including those arising from earlier judicial interventions. The HCA has already experienced Supreme Court-appointed oversight in the past, including the tenure of Justice L. Nageswara Rao. The present supervisory arrangement is yet another indication of how far the Association has travelled from autonomous cricket administration.
Meanwhile, the Lokayukta’s intervention, following a complaint by the Telangana Cricket Association, adds another layer to an already crowded institutional landscape.
The uncomfortable truth is that Telangana cricket is now dealing with much more than a dispute over 57 clubs.
It is a question of whether one of the State’s most important sporting institutions can return to credible, transparent and rule-based self-governance.
The High Court has kept the door open. The SIT has been given a mandate. The Supervisory Committee has authority. The clubs have grievances that remain undecided.
What is now required is not another round of factional accusations, counter-accusations and procedural manoeuvring.
It is a clear, time-bound determination of who is entitled to vote, who is entitled to participate, which decisions were validly taken and whether the Association’s own rules were followed.
Until those questions are settled, the HCA’s cricket may continue not on the field, but in courtrooms.
Its governance, however, remains firmly in the courtroom.
