Special Correspondent
The administrative turbulence within the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) has taken yet another complicated turn, raising serious questions about governance standards, procedural propriety, and institutional credibility. What began as high-profile arrests over alleged financial irregularities has now evolved into a wider debate over due process, political influence, and internal power struggles.
Arrests Without Closure
Former HCA President Jaganmohan Rao, Secretary Devraj, and Treasurer Srinivas were arrested last year following allegations of financial irregularities. Law enforcement agencies publicly stated that a prima facie case existed. However, months later, the absence of a filed charge sheet has sparked widespread speculation within the cricketing fraternity.
Under Indian criminal procedure, investigative agencies are expected to file a charge sheet within a stipulated period if sufficient evidence exists. While delays can occur due to procedural complexities, prolonged inaction inevitably fuels debate. Some observers interpret the delay as evidence of a weak case; others attribute it to administrative backlog. As of now, there is no public judicial finding establishing guilt against the trio.
That distinction is crucial. In the absence of a conviction—or even a formal charge sheet—legal presumption of innocence remains intact.
The Devraj Factor
Within HCA circles, former Secretary Devraj’s tenure has become a focal point of discussion. Supporters argue that during his approximately one-year-plus term, substantial funds received from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), including grants and revenue allocations, were placed in fixed deposits rather than spent immediately.
Figures frequently cited in internal discussions suggest that close to ₹98 crore in BCCI-related grants were reportedly secured in structured deposits, often in tranches of ₹2.5 crore. Additionally, revenue streams linked to the Indian Premier League (IPL) were, according to those familiar with the accounts, utilized primarily for recurring operational expenses.
It is also alleged by some HCA insiders that Devraj resisted proposals to disburse annual funds to affiliated clubs shortly before the arrests took place. Whether those refusals were matters of prudence or points of friction remains part of the ongoing internal narrative, but no court has established wrongdoing on his part to date.
Separately, there are unverified claims within cricketing circles that electoral contests within the HCA had become financially intensive, as is often the case in association politics across India. Such claims remain anecdotal and have not been judicially examined.
Political Overtones?
As with many sporting bodies in India, allegations of political influence are never far from the conversation. Some voices within Hyderabad’s cricket ecosystem allege that certain political figures have shown interest in HCA’s functioning. These assertions, however, remain part of informal discourse and are not backed by any official finding.
It is important to state clearly: no public evidence or court has ruled directly linking any serving minister or government functionary to wrongdoing in HCA’s internal affairs. Claims of influence remain allegations circulating within cricketing and administrative circles.
The Ombudsman and Supervisory Framework
The governance complexity deepens when examining the oversight mechanisms. In previous years, the Supreme Court–mandated reforms to cricket administration,—emerging from the landmark Supreme Court of India-backed Lodha Committee framework—led to the appointment of independent ombudsmen and electoral officers across state associations.
Former Supreme Court judge L. Nageswara Rao had, during his tenure as Ombudsman, reportedly examined various administrative issues within HCA, including disputes relating to club affiliations and conflict-of-interest concerns. His report preceded the appointment of former Chief Election Commissioner V. S. Sampath as Election Officer to oversee polls.
Additionally, the Telangana High Court had appointed a Supervisory Committee led by a retired judge to oversee certain aspects of HCA administration and league conduct. The precise scope of that committee’s authority vis-à-vis day-to-day governance has often been debated.
Leadership Dispute and Legal Challenge
Following the suspensions and removals within the Apex Council, the resulting vacancies were filled through internal processes that have now come under judicial scrutiny. Among the most contentious developments was the elevation of a candidate who had previously lost the presidential election by a razor-thin one-vote margin — a move that has triggered significant debate within the cricketing fraternity.
Former President Jaganmohan Rao has since approached the High Court, challenging his removal on grounds of alleged procedural impropriety and violation of the principles of natural justice. According to publicly available information, his petition argues that the action taken against him preceded the conclusion of any criminal proceedings, raising questions about whether due process was adequately followed.
The court is therefore confronted with more than a routine administrative disagreement. At stake are deeper institutional concerns: whether the Ombudsman acted within the scope of jurisdiction, whether established procedures under the association’s constitution were adhered to, and whether the decision-making process met standards of fairness and transparency.
Compounding the controversy is the decision to proceed with elections for the posts of Secretary and Treasurer even as the High Court is scheduled to hear Jaganmohan Rao’s plea. Critics argue that moving ahead with fresh elections during the pendency of judicial review risks complicating the matter further and may be perceived as pre-empting the court’s eventual findings.
Whether this sequence of actions reflects administrative confidence or institutional overreach is a question that only the judicial process — and time — will answer. But what is undeniable is that the credibility of the association now rests squarely on how transparently and lawfully it navigates this critical moment.
The Stadium Controversy
Separate from the leadership dispute are longstanding questions about a proposed stadium project involving a private entity and HCA. There have been claims—again, untested in court—that financial commitments, penalties, and repayment obligations may have escalated significantly over time. The absence of publicly accessible documentation has only deepened suspicion among stakeholders.
It is worth emphasizing that these remain contested claims. No judicial determination has conclusively established financial liability or misconduct in relation to the project.
An Institution at Crossroads
At its core, the HCA crisis underscores a broader challenge confronting many state sporting bodies in India: balancing autonomy, transparency, and accountability. Frequent litigation, overlapping oversight mechanisms, and factional politics have eroded administrative continuity.
The immediate question before the High Court is specific—whether the removal of elected office-bearers adhered to statutory and constitutional norms. The broader question, however, is existential: can HCA restore credibility?
Until investigations conclude, courts pronounce verdicts, and transparent audits are made public, allegations will continue to circulate. What Hyderabad cricket needs now is not speculation, but clarity—rooted in facts, due process, and institutional reform.
Only then can the conversation return to what it should have always been about: cricket.
