Special Correspondent
Hyderabad cricket was promised course correction. What it is witnessing instead is prolonged drift—quiet, procedural, and deeply consequential. Governance at the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), far from stabilising under judicial supervision, appears to be slipping further into ambiguity. The tragedy is not loud chaos, but slow erosion—where decisions are taken, time is sought, hearings are deferred, and accountability quietly thins out.
The former judge appointed to supervise the HCA has repeatedly projected an image of balance—listening to all sides, seeking time, and claiming a commitment to justice. However, those assurances, including ones personally conveyed to this author, are conspicuously absent in day-to-day governance. Justice is not served when an allegedly compromised Junior Selection Committee continues in office, nor when genuine performers are denied fairness, only for selections to be influenced by whims, power brokers, and private academy promoters.
Governance, after all, is not merely about patience; it demands decisiveness anchored in constitutional propriety. When delays become habitual and deviations—including allegations of corruption supported by documents already in the public domain—go unaddressed, administration does not reform or heal. It decays.
The Telangana leagues, announced with considerable enthusiasm, exemplify this problem. The fundamental question remains unanswered: do they possess legal and constitutional sanctity? With two petitions filed by the Telangana Cricket Association (TCA) still pending before the High Court, the prudence of launching statewide competitions becomes questionable.
More troubling is the constitutional requirement that any league activity extending beyond GHMC limits requires explicit approval of the HCA General Body through an AGM or SGM. Can a truncated committee—functioning with an Acting President and Acting Secretary—take such far-reaching decisions unilaterally? And should such arbitrariness be unfolding under the supervision of a court-appointed authority tasked with restoring institutional discipline?
The controversy has also drawn sharp reactions from the TCA. Its General Secretary, Guruva Reddy Dharam, has alleged that the manner in which decisions are being taken reflects a collapse of institutional credibility rather than a revival of governance.
Calling the developments deeply disturbing, Dharam questioned the composition of the Governing Council for the HCA T20 league, alleging that it represents a recycled grouping whose conduct has been repeatedly challenged in the past. He argued that the present arrangement gives the impression of collusion rather than correction.
He further pointed to what he described as a glaring contradiction. According to Dharam, Sanjeeva Reddy, a petitioner in a High Court writ petition seeking a CBI probe into HCA affairs and also a party to Supreme Court proceedings (SLP 6779/2021) that led to the appointment of judicial committees to clean up the association, now appears aligned with the very administrative ecosystem those proceedings sought to dismantle. Such reversals, he contended, undermine the spirit and intent of judicial intervention.
Dharam also raised concerns over potential conflict-of-interest issues, alleging that relatives of influential administrators continue to find pathways into representative teams. Whether these allegations withstand legal scrutiny or not, their persistence underscores a deeper malaise: the widening gap between reform promised and reform perceived.
Judicial supervision was meant to correct excesses, not legitimise procedural shortcuts by default. If questionable decisions continue unchecked, it risks creating a perception—unfair or otherwise—that oversight has become a shield rather than a scalpel.
Equally disconcerting is the prolonged pendency of TCA and related cases in the High Court. Justice delayed is not neutral—it alters behaviour. In the vacuum created by indecision, influence thrives. Power brokers become bolder, governance more opaque, and accountability increasingly elusive.
The Telangana Premier League is not an optional experiment. It is a crucial pathway—bridging grassroots cricket to IPL exposure and, eventually, national representation. That makes its governance non-negotiable.
The HCA constitution clearly outlines how the League’s Governing Council must be constituted. Yet serious questions remain unanswered. Why is a Joint Secretary occupying a position meant for the Secretary? Why has a Councillor replaced the Treasurer? Who identified the members from the AGM list? Who proposed them? Who approved them? And why was no Special General Meeting convened to ratify these deviations?
An SGM is not ceremonial—it is the constitutional mechanism that confers legitimacy. Bypassing it is not a procedural lapse; it is a breakdown of accountability.
The appointment of Mohammed Siraj as Hyderabad’s Ranji captain is a welcome move. An international fast bowler who still values domestic cricket, Siraj embodies professionalism and competitive integrity. His presence alone elevates standards.
But individual excellence cannot mask institutional dysfunction.
Hyderabad cricket does not suffer from a lack of talent—it suffers from inconsistent vision, selective rule enforcement, and a persistent reluctance to trust youth. What makes the present phase more alarming than past mismanagement is not merely the bending of rules, but the displacement of responsibility. Earlier, accountability—however flawed—rested with the General Body. Today, influence appears diffuse, insulated, and difficult to locate.
That is not reform. It is a redistribution of control without transparency.
Hyderabad’s Ranji captaincy has become a revolving door: Rahul Singh, C.V. Milind, Tanay Thyagarajan, back to Rahul Singh, again Milind, and now Siraj. Such churn prevents stability and denies the team a coherent identity. Successful domestic sides—Mumbai, Vidarbha, Madhya Pradesh—commit to leadership over time. Hyderabad reacts season to season.
Even when qualification chances are largely theoretical, familiar names continue to dominate leadership roles. Rahul Singh’s recurring presence as captain or vice-captain raises a fundamental question: what is the succession plan? This season offered a clear opportunity to groom a young deputy under Siraj. It was allowed to pass.
Selection inconsistencies persist. The fixation on left-arm spinners—two in the squad and one on standby—has effectively closed the door on leg-spinners and off-spinners. One is tempted to ask whether Aashish Srivastava, with 47 wickets this season, would fare better by changing his bowling arm. Even a 100-wicket season may not suffice without fitting a preferred template.
Meanwhile, players nearing 30 with limited growth trajectory continue to find space, while consistent performers wait endlessly. This was the season to blood youth. Cricketers such as Rishiket Sisodia, Mickhil Jaiswal, P. Nitish Reddy, Dinesh Rathod, Sai Vikas Reddy, Sai Purnanand, and others have earned opportunities through performance, not promise. Merit, however, appears negotiable.
The treatment of Under-23 players compounds the problem. Keeping them as Ranji standbys while the U23 campaign progresses weakens both pathways. Players remain uncertain—should they prepare for age-group cricket or linger on the fringes of senior selection?
With different selection committees for Ranji and U23 teams, this overlap invites confusion, mixed signals, and external influence. The solution is straightforward: either blood them in Ranji cricket or allow them uninterrupted U23 participation. The current halfway approach undermines development.
Justice Naveen Rao’s appointment initially inspired hope—hope that Hyderabad cricket would finally witness principled reform and constitutional clarity. Instead, the season has left young cricketers more uncertain than before. Allegations of external influence persist. Conflict-of-interest concerns surface, yet visible corrective action remains scarce.
When leadership keeps changing, rules keep bending, and scrutiny is consistently avoided, decline stops being accidental—it becomes structural. And in such an environment, even the best captain can only paper over the cracks.
Hyderabad cricket does not need symbolic gestures. It needs constitutional discipline, transparent decision-making, and the courage to enforce reform—without fear or favour. Until then, supervision risks becoming silence. And silence, in governance, is never neutral.
