Three courts. Three rulings. One institution that still hasn’t answered for any of it.
Vinay Rao
Three courts. Three rulings against HCA’s Ombudsman or orders flowing from his office. A CB-CID Special Investigation Team now constituted to probe years of financial rot. Contempt notices against sitting office bearers. An Acting President who was present for every wrong decision and absent for every moment of accountability.
This is not a crisis that crept up on HCA. It was built — order by order, adjournment by adjournment — by men who are still in office.
This article makes four demands. The Ombudsman must resign. The architects of the fraudulent adjourned AGM of July 2025 must be suspended. Contempt proceedings against the Joint Secretary and Treasurer must run to completion. And the Acting President must either publicly break from the conduct of the previous regime — specifically, not rhetorically — or vacate the chair.
Here is the evidence.
Strike One — Appointing a Club President (WP 4936/2026)
On February 2, 2026, the Ombudsman issued an order appointing Amar Nath as President of Galaxy Cricket Club — overriding the club’s own membership, its election process, and the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of 1940 that govern it.
Justice Renuka Yara set it aside in WP 4936/2026. Illegal. Arbitrary. Unconstitutional. Without jurisdiction. She directed HCA’s vice-president to convene a special general body meeting for a fresh election conducted in accordance with HCA’s own rules.
HCA’s defence in court? Ombudsman orders cannot be challenged before the High Court — aggrieved parties must go to the Arbitral Tribunal. The court rejected this without hesitation.
An ombudsman who appoints club presidents. An association that defends it before the High Court. This is the institution these men have built.
Strike Two — Ordering Promotions
Nobody Asked For (WP 10001/2026)
A player from Rohit XI Cricket Club came to the Ombudsman with a precise grievance: the CEO had suspended player Chittineni Srihith and awarded a semi-final match to Imperial CC — without a hearing, in violation of Bye-law Section 41(1)(c).
The Ombudsman acknowledged the procedural violation. Then left it entirely unresolved — and instead ordered four B-Division clubs promoted to A-Division for 2026-27, based on what he described as “consent of parties.” This promotion framework directly contradicts the recommendations of Justice L. Nageswara Rao’s Single Member Committee, accepted by HCA through an undertaking before the Supreme Court of India, under which promotion is earned through performance and performance alone.
Justice Renuka Yara’s finding was unambiguous:
“The Ombudsman exceeded the contours of the issue presented before him… A recommendation or consensus cannot form a substitute for performance.”
And the consent he recorded? HCA denied it on record — “no formal or authorized consent given by any competent body” of the Association had been given.
He recorded consent that the consenting party denies giving. He granted relief nobody had sought. He left the original question — Srihith’s eligibility — entirely unanswered. And in doing so, he drove a coach and horses through a Supreme Court-endorsed framework designed to protect competitive merit in Hyderabad cricket.
Strike Three — His Appointment Itself Is Under Challenge (WP 25015/2025)
In WP 25015 of 2025, Classic Cricket Club — represented by its Secretary Ramakrishna Udupa — has challenged not merely an order of the Ombudsman but the validity of his appointment itself, along with the legality of the adjourned AGM from which that appointment flows. Judgment is reserved. The sword is drawn.
If that falls, every order this Ombudsman has passed comes under a cloud.
Three cases. Each one, independently, sufficient to end a career in adjudication. Together, they are a demolition. The Ombudsman’s continuation in office is not just untenable — it is an affront to the institution the office is meant to protect.
He must resign.
The Adjourned AGM: A Coup in Slow Motion
To understand how HCA arrived here, you have to go back to the summer of 2025.
The 87th AGM was held on June 29, purportedly adjourned, and reconvened on July 19 — with three days’ notice. HCA’s bye-laws require twenty-one days for an AGM. Even the more permissive Special General Meeting standard requires ten. Three days is not an oversight. It is a deliberate foreclosure of opposition.
The 57 clubs disqualified by Justice Nageswara Rao following forensic examination of ownership anomalies were invited to the June 29 meeting. They were barred from the July 19 reconvening. The communication informing them of their exclusion was sent by email at 10:21 PM the night before.
Justice Bheemapaka’s April 24 judgment in WP 21904/2025 recorded the state of the body conducting all this: the Apex Council was functioning without a valid quorum — President and Treasurer under arrest, Secretary absconding, two Players’ Association representatives suspended. Four members remained against a mandatory quorum of five. Decisions kept flowing “as though it were duly constituted.”
This was not negligence. Negligence does not exclude specific clubs at 10 PM the night before a meeting. This was the calculated capture of institutional process by people who knew exactly what the rules required and chose otherwise. The SMC has the power to act against those responsible. It must use them.
The Acting President: Here for the IPL, Gone When It Mattered
With the President arrested and the Secretary absconding, the Vice President has stepped into the Acting President’s chair — by default, not by mandate.
He was present through every decision that courts have since struck down. Present through the adjourned AGM and its surgical exclusions. Present through the sustained, documented obstruction of Justice Naveen Rao that Justice Bheemapaka captured in language that should be read slowly:
“The Apex Council does not want the presence of Justice Naveen Rao in the Respondent No.2 administration and activities for obvious reasons.”
For obvious reasons. The court understood the motive. It didn’t need to spell it out.
And through each of these episodes, the Vice President was reliably present for one thing: the IPL season. The hospitality. The passes. The quiet privileges of seniority in an institution whose governance he chose not to question — because questioning it would have cost him his place at the table.
That is not leadership interrupted by circumstance. That is opportunism sustained across years. Silence through institutional collapse is not neutrality. It is complicity with a title attached.
The Acting President must publicly account for his conduct through these years — specifically, not in generalities — or stand aside.
What the Courts Have Already Built
Justice Bheemapaka’s April 24 judgment is the most sweeping judicial intervention in HCA’s history. Its three pillars:
A CB-CID Special Investigation Team, headed by an officer of Additional Commissioner rank, directed to investigate HCA’s full administrative, managerial and financial record — with access to every prior judicial report, from Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice G.V. Seethapathy through to Justice Naveen Rao.
Contempt notices under Form-1 were issued against Joint Secretary Thamidisetty Basava Raju and Treasurer Dr. Konda Anil Kumar for overreaching court orders.
Justice Naveen Rao confirmed as Single Member Committee with comprehensive authority — over league administration, player selection, appointments, finances, legal representation and structural reform — until criminal proceedings reach their “logical end.” Not a season. Not a year. Until the end.
The same judgment recorded what Justice Naveen Rao delivered despite obstruction at every step: over 1,500 matches conducted across levels, two national tournament wins, and State team performance measurably improved. The court’s own words:
“But for the few vested interested persons in Respondent No.2, overall, the satisfaction of people concerning cricket was happy with the measures taken by Justice P. Naveen Rao.”
The vested interests are not abstractions. They have names, titles, and offices. The investigation is live. The contempt process is live. The CAV in WP 25015 is pending.
The Four Demands — Restated as a Verdict
The Ombudsman must resign. Three proceedings have cumulatively destroyed the credibility of the office that he holds it. An ombudsman who neither knows nor respects the limits of his jurisdiction is not an ombudsman. He is a problem.
The architects of the adjourned AGM must be suspended by the SMC pending the SIT investigation. The procedural violations are on record. The targeting of specific clubs is on record. The absent quorum is on record. The SMC has the power. The obligation is clear.
The contempt proceedings against Basava Raju and Anil Kumar must run to their full conclusion — publicly, without compromise, without the quiet settlements that have allowed HCA’s accountability moments to dissipate for nine years.
The Acting President must declare, specifically and publicly, what he stands for — or stand aside. Inheriting a chair is not the same as earning it. Proximity to power during its abuse requires explanation, not silence.
HCA’s cricketers — thousands of players across A Division, B Division, C Division and districts across Telangana — asked only to play and to be selected on merit. They have been failed by this institution across successive regimes that treated the game as a vehicle for private benefit.
That failure has a face. Several faces. The courts have identified them. Now they must answer.
