Shesh Narayan
The Hyderabad Cricket Association’s governance structure is once again facing a crucial test—one that goes to the very heart of its constitutional integrity. At issue is whether the Apex Council can override a valid General Body resolution without due process, without notice, and without the mandatory institutional checks that the 2018 Amended Byelaws clearly prescribe. A careful and dispassionate reading of those Byelaws makes one thing absolutely clear: the recent directive issued to Bharat Cricket Club, seeking refund of already sanctioned funds, is not merely irregular, but prima facie ultra vires.
The HCA Constitution is unambiguous in its declaration that all powers of governance, management and decision-making rest exclusively with the General Body. This is not ceremonial language; it is the foundational bedrock of the Association’s democratic framework. The General Body is the supreme authority, and the Apex Council is an administrative arm established to function within the limits set by that supreme authority. The Byelaws explicitly reinforce this hierarchy by empowering the General Body to review “any decision of the Apex Council.” Therefore, no directive of the Apex Council can supersede or reverse a General Body resolution unless it is formally placed before the General Body for deliberation, reconsideration, and a fresh decision. In the present case, no such process has occurred. No annulment motion exists, no review has been initiated, and no Special General Body Meeting has been convened. The original General Body approval, therefore, remains fully valid and operative.
The Byelaws further clarify that the Apex Council’s powers are subordinate and subject to the control and regulation of the General Body. Rule 15(2) states that the Apex Council shall exercise its powers except in matters expressly reserved for the General Body, and even those powers must be exercised in conformity with the General Body’s authority. Any unilateral attempt to nullify, reinterpret, or reverse a General Body-approved financial sanction—without placing the matter before the Body itself—stands outside the legal jurisdiction of the Apex Council.
Another disturbing aspect of the directive is the complete absence of due process. The HCA Constitution mandates that whenever an action affecting a Member is contemplated, the Apex Council must issue a show-cause notice, call for an explanation, and provide a fair opportunity of hearing before passing any order. These requirements are compulsory expressions of natural justice, not optional administrative courtesies. Yet, in this matter, no notice was issued, no explanation was sought, no hearing was granted, and no reasoned order exists. Such bypassing of procedural fairness goes against both the letter and the spirit of the HCA Constitution.
Compounding this lapse is the bypassing of the Ombudsman, who is the sole authority empowered to adjudicate disputes between the Association and its Members. Rule 41 mandates that such disputes shall be automatically referred to the Ombudsman, and that hearings shall be conducted strictly in accordance with principles of natural justice. The Apex Council, therefore, does not possess the discretion to adjudicate disputes, impose penalties, or issue directives of this nature. Bypassing the Ombudsman is not a procedural oversight; it is a direct violation of the mandated dispute-resolution mechanism.
Financial accountability within the HCA is equally well-defined. Rule 4(2) allows denial of future financial grants only if a Member fails to submit accounts, and even then, the Apex Council may grant an extension of up to six months. The rule does not permit demanding refunds of funds already sanctioned, does not allow retrospective reversal of a General Body-approved grant, and certainly does not endorse selective or discriminatory financial action against specific clubs. In the absence of any evidence-based finding or adjudicated failure, the directive issued to Bharat Cricket Club has no legal foundation.
In view of these clear constitutional provisions, Bharat Cricket Club respectfully seeks clarification on the validity of the Apex Council’s directive in light of Rules 5 and 15; a stay and review of the refund instruction until the Ombudsman adjudicates the issue; an inquiry into the procedural lapses that led to the issuance of this directive; release of the pending sanctioned amount of ₹5,00,000 with applicable interest as the General Body approval remains in force; and issuance of clear instructions ensuring non-discriminatory application of financial policies across all Member Clubs.
Bharat Cricket Club reiterates that its stand is not adversarial. The Club remains fully compliant with the Association’s norms and seeks only adherence to the binding mandate of the General Body, equality before the Association, and due process as required under the HCA Constitution. We remain confident that under the stewardship of the current leadership, the HCA will uphold the principles of rule of law, transparency, and democratic integrity. Safeguarding the supremacy of the General Body is not just a matter of procedure; it is essential for restoring trust in cricket governance and ensuring that fairness, consistency, and constitutional values guide every action of the Association. (The author is a former secretary of HCA)
