Special Correspondent
Age discrepancy, selection controversy and unanswered questions demand accountability
The Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) appears unable to escape a familiar cycle of controversies, with fresh questions emerging over women’s team selections, an alleged age discrepancy involving a registered player and complaints about objectionable messages allegedly sent by a selection committee chief. The allegations remain to be independently verified, but the questions they raise demand clear answers from those entrusted with administering the game.
The age file at the centre of this report is not a lone file gathering dust. It is one of many.
The latest controversy surrounding the Hyderabad women’s U-23 team has reignited demands from aggrieved parents for a fresh selection process and the removal of the existing selectors. Their contention is that performance and merit must take precedence over influence or other considerations. Such demands cannot substitute for evidence, but neither should they be brushed aside without a transparent examination of the selection process.
Separately, a parent has reportedly raised allegations concerning objectionable, sexually suggestive messages allegedly posted or sent by a selection committee chief. Upon receiving the communication, Orangenews9 forwarded it to the Telangana High Court-appointed Special Management Committee (SMC) and the state Director General of Police (DGP), seeking verification and, if warranted, an appropriate inquiry. The allegations must not be treated as facts unless the material is authenticated and the person concerned is given a fair opportunity to respond.
However, the age-discrepancy issue raises a more specific question because it is supported by a document attributed to the HCA itself.
A letter signed by the HCA Secretary, addressed to the parents of registered player Raghava Pattapu and dated November 2023, records that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had received a complaint alleging that the player possessed two birth certificates. According to the letter, the certificates, reportedly cross-verified through the Telangana Government’s online portal, recorded two different dates of birth: April 19, 2005, and April 19, 2006.
The HCA sought a comprehensive explanation by November 13, 2023, warning that further action could follow under applicable BCCI rules if clarification was not furnished.
What happened after that deadline? Did the player or the parents respond? Were the documents authenticated by the competent authorities? Was a final determination made by the HCA or BCCI? If so, what was the outcome? And if the matter remained unresolved, on what basis was the player’s eligibility assessed for subsequent competitions?
These are straightforward administrative questions. The letter establishes that a discrepancy was flagged; it does not, by itself, establish deliberate age fraud or justify a predetermined penalty. Any suspension, including a possible two-year ban, must depend on the applicable BCCI regulations, the facts and the prescribed procedure. The player must be given due process.
A complainant has also alleged a family connection between the player and the HCA’s then Chief Executive Officer. That claim, too, requires verification. If any relationship or conflict of interest existed, the association should disclose whether appropriate safeguards were followed. A connection alone would not prove preferential treatment.
Not an isolated case
In November 2024, the HCA itself listed players “with age discrepancies and under investigation” and barred them from the A-Division T20 League. It is learnt that a few later won relief on technical grounds, and that the relief was then extended to everyone on the list without further investigation. How many were cleared, and how many punished? Nobody seems to know. Every over-age player takes the place of a genuine one, though the HCA’s own Rules commit it “to ban doping, age fraud, sexual harassment”.
The larger concern is institutional accountability. Who monitored the complaint after the Secretary formally raised it? Did the previous Apex Council address it? Was it carried forward to subsequent administrators, including the SMC? And were the same eligibility standards applied consistently to every player?
The HCA’s troubled history makes these questions particularly consequential. The CID’s reported filing of an 80-page chargesheet in a case concerning alleged financial irregularities, following a complaint associated with IPL franchise Sunrisers Hyderabad, has already intensified scrutiny of the association. Reports of an alleged loss approaching ₹92 crore and the naming of former Secretary Devraj as accused No. 2 in the chargesheet are matters for the legal process. Being named as an accused does not establish guilt.
The SMC’s presence should strengthen oversight, not become a reason for stakeholders to stop asking questions. The committee must establish what happened, what remains pending and what corrective action is justified.
Hope, but no results
That is the saddest part. Court supervision brought real hope, but on age fraud, selections and past misdeeds, it is yet to turn into results. Complaints meander and the guilty appear to walk free. The message to parents is corrosive: it is safer to keep the right people happy than to wait for reform and lose a season. If that belief takes root, the old system wins without a fight.
The fix is simple: a public register of every pending case with a deadline, a case-by-case review of the 2024 list with birth records checked at source, and every outcome made public.
Cricket cannot demand accountability from players while allowing administrative questions to languish unanswered. The HCA and the BCCI owe the game a transparent explanation—based on records, rules and evidence, not speculation or selective silence.
Unless the guilty are seen to pay a price, the honest will keep paying it instead.
