Special Correspondent
The Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), displaying startling defiance amid mounting dissent and serious questions over legal sanctity, has once again recirculated the same controversial circular to its affiliated club secretaries on January 2—apparently unmoved by growing opposition, constitutional objections, and warnings of illegality. The move comes even as former office-bearers continue to publicly challenge the very legitimacy of the exercise to amend the Association’s Constitution.
Earlier, former HCA Secretary Venkateswaran had sharply questioned the rationale behind seeking “views” from affiliated clubs on constitutional amendments, arguing that such an exercise was not merely procedurally flawed but legally untenable. He formally raised these objections in a letter addressed to the High Court-appointed Single-Member Supervisory Committee (SMSC) headed by Justice Naveen Rao—a communication also reported in these columns. Venkateswaran further alleged that he was abruptly and arbitrarily removed from the Constitution Amendment Committee, along with another club secretary, Harinarayan, without explanation, authority, or due process.
The dissent has since widened and deepened.
Another former HCA Secretary, Shesh Narayan, has now joined the chorus, raising even more pointed questions—this time invoking explicit Supreme Court directives to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) that have a direct and binding bearing on HCA’s actions.
In a strongly worded communication dated December 31, 2025, Shesh Narayan questioned the very existence, constitution, and authority of the so-called Constitution Amendment Committee. “Who constituted this committee?” he asked, pointing out that the individual claiming to be its Chairman had neither General Body approval nor clearance from the Supreme Court of India. He went further, alleging that the said individual himself stood disqualified, ominously adding that “the proof of the pudding will be exposed.”
He posed a fundamental constitutional question that cuts to the heart of the controversy:
“Do we even have the power to go beyond Supreme Court orders?”
According to Shesh Narayan, the apex court’s directions to the BCCI are unequivocal—any amendment to a state association’s constitution requires prior Supreme Court clearance. Any attempt to bypass this mandate, he warned, would be illegal, contemptuous, and void ab initio.
Expressing hope that the Single-Member Supervisory Committee would intervene decisively, he urged it to “put a full stop” to what he described as illegal activities being pushed by a defunct, truncated, and self-styled administrative setup. He also flagged serious conflict-of-interest concerns, alleging that several individuals involved in the process were disqualified or compromised, rendering their participation in constitutional matters deeply suspect.
Shesh Narayan further raised alarm over reports of a three-member informal group allegedly functioning as aides to the Supervisory Committee. Questioning their credentials and legitimacy, he claimed that one had earlier been removed from an educational institution, while another was a real-estate promoter—individuals, he argued, with no conceivable role in cricket administration. Their continued proximity to decision-making, he warned, risked causing irreparable institutional damage.
In a scathing aside, the former Secretary addressed an open letter to Agam Rao of Karimnagar, sarcastically suggesting his appointment as Public Relations Officer of the HCA. He accused Rao of acting as a cheerleader for the administration and cautioned against “putting the cart before the horse” in matters of governance, reform, and legality.
Taking the allegations further, Shesh Narayan claimed that financial muscle was influencing key decisions within the Association. Referring to “money bags,” he questioned whether those allegedly being favoured possessed any legitimate electoral mandate. He accused unnamed individuals of facilitating the “hijacking” of both the institution and the game, alleging that those “bleeding the Association” were being shielded, protected, and encouraged.
He also alleged that individuals holding the HCA “to ransom” were being accorded preferential treatment, including what he termed a “red-carpet welcome.” Issuing a clear warning, Shesh Narayan asserted that accountability was inevitable and that justice—though delayed—would ultimately prevail.
The letter adds to a swelling wave of internal dissent and a deepening institutional crisis surrounding the functioning of the HCA—raising uncomfortable questions that refuse to fade.
What makes the situation even more troubling is that these constitutional and administrative concerns do not exist in isolation. Persistent issues continue on the cricketing front: opaque selections, repeated sidelining of consistent performers, unresolved age and domicile fraud allegations, and a conspicuous reluctance to institute transparent corrective mechanisms. Compounding this is the reality of a truncated Apex Council, functioning without full representative legitimacy yet presiding over crucial cricketing and administrative decisions—resulting in ad-hoc governance, blurred accountability, and selective application of policy and BCCI advisories.
Against this bleak backdrop, one contrast stands out.
The lone area of relative stability and credibility within Hyderabad cricket has been the conduct of club leagues. Significantly, the credit for ensuring continuity, discipline, and orderly execution rests squarely with the Single-Member Supervisory Committee under Justice Naveen Rao. In an otherwise fragmented administrative environment, league cricket has benefitted from firm oversight, minimal interference, and a conscious effort to allow cricket to proceed on merit.
Yet this very contrast underscores the core concern.
Where authority is exercised clearly, within mandate, and with restraint, outcomes improve. Where governance becomes diffused, informal, or overreaching, credibility erodes. Taken together, these unresolved issues point to a deeper malaise—an institution grappling not merely with legality, but with consistency, moral authority, and purpose—questions that no circular, committee, or cosmetic exercise can indefinitely wish away.
