Special Correspondent
The recent attempt by the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) to initiate amendments to its Constitution has raised serious procedural, legal, and governance-related concerns, warranting careful examination and documentation. This report places on record the sequence of events, objections raised by stakeholders, and the broader implications of the ongoing exercise.
A former Secretary of the Hyderabad Cricket Association, Mr. Venkateswaran, who was nominated as a member of the Constitution Drafting Committee, and was subsequently removed along with another committee member representing an affiliated club, Mr. Harinayana, has formally lodged a written complaint. The complaint has been addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, President, and Secretary of the HCA, and also marked to the Supervisory Committee headed by Justice (Retd.) Naveen Rao, appointed by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court.
The immediate trigger for the complaint was a message circulated through WhatsApp, purportedly on behalf of the Constitution Drafting Committee, inviting affiliated clubs to offer suggestions for amendments to the HCA Constitution. The message included a footnote stating that “only authorised representatives are allowed to suggest amendments.” However, the message neither bore the HCA letterhead nor carried the name, designation, or signature of any authorised office-bearer.
This has led to a fundamental question: who qualifies as an “authorised representative” under the present constitutional and regulatory framework of the HCA?
Under established norms, and more importantly, following the implementation of the Justice Lodha Committee recommendations, an authorised representative refers strictly to an elected or duly appointed member of a club’s managing committee. Before these reforms, the term had been loosely interpreted, allowing proxies—including drivers, servants, or other non-committee individuals—to attend Annual General Meetings or vote on behalf of member clubs. Such practices were expressly disallowed post-Lodha reforms in the interest of transparency, accountability, and institutional integrity.
In this context, the restriction mentioned in the WhatsApp message appears conceptually correct but procedurally flawed. If only authorised representatives are permitted to suggest constitutional amendments, it becomes all the more imperative that the communication itself emanates from a clearly authorised source within the HCA. Amendments to the Constitution are among the most serious and consequential acts of any association, particularly one already under judicial supervision. Any invitation for such suggestions ought to be formally communicated through an official circular, issued on the Association’s letterhead, bearing the signature and designation of a competent authority empowered to do so.
The use of an unsigned WhatsApp message, without attribution or institutional authentication, reflects an unprofessional and irregular mode of functioning. It also raises legitimate doubts about the validity of the process being followed and the intent behind it.
The controversy is further aggravated by the status of the Constitution Drafting Committee itself. Two members of the originally constituted committee were removed in a manner described by the complainant as abrupt and without due process. One of the removed members has formally questioned the authority of the Committee Chair to effect such removals unilaterally. Importantly, this objection remains unresolved and has neither been withdrawn nor adjudicated by any competent authority. Despite this, the truncated committee has proceeded to initiate the amendment exercise, giving rise to questions about its legitimacy and jurisdiction.
Against this backdrop, insiders within the HCA have expressed apprehensions that the proposed amendments may not be aimed at comprehensive institutional reform, but rather at facilitating elections to certain vacant posts—specifically those of President, Secretary, and Treasurer—without restoring the Association to full functional normalcy. It is alleged that these amendments could be structured to selectively address governance hurdles that presently impede such elections.
There is also speculation within HCA circles about an alleged tacit understanding involving the head of the Supervisory Committee and the suspended elected President, Mr. Jaganmohan Rao. While these claims remain unsubstantiated and no official confirmation has been issued, they are being discussed in the context of perceived personal and regional proximities, further complicating the trust deficit within the Association.
The present situation cannot be viewed in isolation. HCA’s recent history has repeatedly witnessed intersections between cricket administration and political influence. A former HCA Secretary had earlier raised objections regarding the alleged involvement of a serving state minister in organising a district-level T20 tournament, an act widely perceived as violating the BCCI’s conflict-of-interest norms. That episode remains unresolved and continues to serve as a reminder of the institutional vulnerabilities that plague the Association.
Just as allegations were earlier levelled regarding the influence of the previous BRS government in supporting Mr. Jaganmohan Rao’s candidature during the last elections, there are now similar claims suggesting that the present Congress government is keen to assert its influence over HCA affairs. According to sources, this objective is purportedly linked to the installation of a preferred candidate as President, with constitutional amendments being viewed as a necessary instrument to withstand possible judicial scrutiny, particularly in matters relating to suspension, expulsion, and continuity of governance.
The absence of quorum to convene a Special General Body meeting has added another layer of complexity. In these circumstances, a section within the HCA—described by insiders as a “think tank” driven by vested interests—is allegedly advocating constitutional amendments as an alternative route to conduct elections for only the vacated posts. It is claimed that the suspended President has reportedly indicated a willingness not to challenge his suspension or removal, provided the amended Constitution offers a legally acceptable exit mechanism.
At the same time, the Secretary of the Association has already completed eight years in office, thereby attracting the operation of BCCI tenure norms, which would render any further continuation untenable. His perceived proximity to influential figures within the current ruling establishment has been a subject of internal discussion. This effectively leaves the Treasurer as the remaining office-bearer, whom, it is alleged, the stakeholders driving the amendment process believe can be persuaded or accommodated within a revised constitutional framework.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the present exercise is the allegation that a broader strategy is being contemplated to bypass the need for approval at an Annual General Body meeting. There is apprehension that the HCA may attempt to legitimise constitutional changes by merely eliciting views from affiliated clubs and projecting even a limited response as sufficient compliance. Such an approach, while possibly framed to appear consultative, risks undermining both the spirit of democratic governance and the letter of institutional accountability.
In conclusion, as the Hyderabad Cricket Association stands at yet another constitutional crossroads, the critical issue is not merely whether amendments are needed, but how they are conceived, communicated, and ratified. With judicial oversight already in place and the Association’s credibility under sustained scrutiny, any attempt to rush, dilute, or procedurally re-engineer the Constitution is likely to invite closer examination from stakeholders and the courts alike. Transparency, legality, and institutional propriety must therefore guide every step of this process if the HCA is to restore confidence and stability in its governance.
