Justice or Just a Farce? How a Supreme Court-Appointed Ombudsman Deepened the Rot in HCA
In last week’s instalment, I resumed this series with renewed urgency—not out of nostalgia, but necessity. As the rot in Hyderabad cricket deepens, what was once whispered in club corridors is now being shouted aloud. My inbox is overflowing—former players, administrators, and even long-silent spectators of this decline are finally speaking out.
Why now? Because the truth has found no refuge in mainstream media. Several reporters have told me their editors were “advised” to steer clear of HCA affairs—some even faced termination threats for pursuing these stories. Who’s behind the gag? We’ll come to that. But first, let’s confront the larger betrayal: how a former Supreme Court judge, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, allegedly failed Hyderabad cricket, perhaps irreversibly.
After multiple petitions exposed widespread malpractice in cricket administration across India, the Supreme Court appointed the Lodha Committee to recommend reforms. Based on its recommendations, Justice L. Nageswara Rao was named Ombudsman to clean up the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA). What followed, however, was a travesty of reform—a bureaucratic blunder dressed up as a judicial remedy, many allege.
Instead of addressing the foundational rot festering for over two decades, Justice Rao reportedly zeroed in on a misdiagnosed symptom: clubs holding multiple memberships. He deemed this a “conflict of interest” and ordered the blanket suspension of nearly 57 clubs. Sounds decisive? It wasn’t. It was arbitrary, ill-informed, and deeply damaging, is what some of those who served the association claim.
Let’s unpack the real disease behind the HCA’s collapse—and why the so-called “remedy” only made it worse.
“The notion that multiple club ownership amounts to a conflict of interest may apply in narrow instances—like elections or team selections—but it barely skims the surface of HCA’s rot. Critics argue Justice Rao either leaned on selective briefings or failed to comprehend the entrenched political machinery that has hijacked cricket in Telangana.” If he truly wanted to identify where the rot began, he needed to look back to the tenure of former HCA Secretary Ranga Reddy. That’s where this decay took root.
Also read: https://orangenews9.com/who-ruined-hyderabad-cricket-vii/
During the golden era—under Ghulam Ahmed and P.R. Mansingh—the HCA thrived not only on talent but structure. Institutional clubs like SBI, SBH, Andhra Bank, ITC, VST, HAL, and HMT (to name a few) didn’t just field competitive teams in the A-division—they provided employment, stability, and dignity to budding cricketers. The ecosystem was functional, fair, and fiercely competitive.
But from the early 1990s, things began to unravel.
As banks stopped recruiting and corporate houses pulled out of league cricket, their teams slowly withered.
Some of the Institution Teams like Hyderabad Allwyn, APDDCF, Indian Express, Godrej, HUDA, U-Foam, SIFCO (subsequently WIMCO), and the old Union Bank were illegally converted from Institutions to Private Clubs during the mid-nineties, wherein the ruling group’s favourites were given the authority.
Also, barring a few District Associations, which were always active in the conduct of cricket, the other District Associations were also activated and given affiliation.
The teams under the GHMC umbrella (almost 15 in number) were also released and their membership revived.
All these practices were undertaken with a single point Agenda – to increase the vote bank.
Besides, today there are many Institutional Teams which are “virtual dead” – RBI, IDL, IAF, AOC, CCMB, Midhani, APCOB, LIC, Central Bank, and the like.
These teams were given membership/affiliation to HCA at a time when they were regularly recruiting cricketers and thereby supported cricket, cricketers, and the Cricket Association. With no recruitment happening now and the old recruits having retired, these teams participation in the League is only a formality (they play only 20-over-a-side matches). These teams no longer support cricket but the membership continues for their votes. Corrupt representatives of these teams play havoc during the elections. To curb this malice, Justice Lodha, in fact, in his recommendations,had it made it mandatory that for Institutions to participate in the General Body Meetings of the Association, they should be represented by a First Class Cricketer. Putting this Rule into practice would have solved a lot of issues for the Association.
Also read: https://orangenews9.com/who-ruined-hyderabad-cricket-v/
It is these “dead clubs/institutions” that became the perfect tools for electoral manipulation. Ostensibly, this democratized cricket. In reality, it weaponized it. Votes could be bought, brokered, and block delivered. The game was no longer played on the pitch – it was rigged in boardrooms.
And Justice Rao, despite having access to the HCA Constitution and being empowered to scrutinize such irregularities, missed the forest for the trees. To curb this menace, the HCA Constitution had imposed a nine-year cap (three terms or nine years), which should have disqualified many of the entrenched ‘brokers’ who continue to call the shots like leeches.
Whose Conflict of Interest?
Let’s also talk about irony. One of the key figures Justice Rao relied on was an IPS officer whose son made it to the state’s Ranji team. If that’s not a conflict of interest, what is? Many wonder.
Why wasn’t this flagged? Why wasn’t it investigated? Many who got annoyed with Justice Rao, ask.
Instead, Rao turned his axe toward clubs, some with legitimate records and players, under the generic excuse of “conflict of interest,” a move that only benefited the existing cabal. It cleared the field for the same set of power brokers who have strangled the game for decades.
The HCA Constitution—if applied honestly—offers a simple solution: a cap of nine years or three terms in office. Had Justice Rao enforced this rule, he could’ve automatically disqualified the majority of the long-term manipulators entrenched in the Association. But he didn’t. Why?
Either he lacked the will, the vision, or both. Worse, his interventions lent legal cover to the same clique he was supposed to dismantle.
The damage from Justice Rao’s tenure is both institutional and moral. Credible clubs were disbanded, dedicated administrators were sidelined, and the average cricketer—hopeful, talented youngster looking for a break, was left to navigate a corrupted, closeted system.
Let’s be clear: Hyderabad cricket did not collapse because players lacked talent. It collapsed because the administrative machinery was hijacked by men more interested in control than cricket. And far from fixing this, the Supreme Court-appointed Ombudsman simply gave the hijackers a longer runway.
In the next instalment, I’ll dive deeper into the constitutional breaches, flawed interpretations, and court orders that were either conveniently ignored or dangerously distorted. If Justice Rao truly intended to deliver justice, he had every tool he needed. What he delivered, instead, was confusion, compromise, and a fresh coat of legitimacy to an old racket. (To be continued)
Also read: https://orangenews9.com/who-ruined-hyderabad-cricket-part-iv/
