Recommendations To Be Incorporated In Constitution of Hyderabad Cricket Association: Supreme Court Refers Matter To CJI For Tagging It With BCCI Case

The Apex Court was considering a batch of Special Leave Petitions assailing the correctness of the judgment passed by the Telangana High Court in a Civil Revision Petition.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, “We accordingly direct the Registry to place the papers before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for passing appropriate orders.”

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Rakesh Kumar Khanna represented the Respondents.

The Respondent No.2 M/s Budding Star Cricket Club instituted a suit before the Civil Court seeking a declaration that the appointment of the Ombudsman and the Ethics Officer by the Apex Council was not in accordance with the Constitution of the Hyderabad Cricket Association.In the said suit, the Civil Court, while allowing an Interlocutory Application, passed an order for suspension of the decision of the Apex Council during the pendency of the said suit, till its disposal.

In Revision, the High Court by the impugned order set aside the order of suspension of the appointment of Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer and dismissed the Interlocutory Application with cost of Rs 25,000.The suit order. Assailing the correctness of the same, the present Special Leave Petitions were filed.

The Apex Court had, in the year 2022, appointed a Supervisory Committee under the Chairmanship of the retired Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh along with three members. Later in 2023, it was held that the Supervisory Committee would not survive because fair and proper elections of the executive body of the Hyderabad Cricket Association were essential. The elections were held under the supervision of the Single Member Committee and certain recommendations were also made to be incorporated in the Constitution of Hyderabad. A large number of objections were filed by different parties against the recommendations.

As an interim measure, it was directed that the recommendations in the meantime would come into force and be implemented. It was also brought to the Court’s notice that another Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014 was pending involving some of these issues. It was noticed by the Bench that the said Civil Appeal was dealing with a broader issue relating to the Constitution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and there was a direction passed therein that all States' Cricket Associations would have their Constitution in line with the Constitution of the BCCI.

It was also submitted before the Bench that some of the recommendations made by the Single Member Committee would be in conflict with the Constitution of BCCI and therefore, if the Hyderabad Cricket Association adopts the same, there would be a direct conflict with the directions issued in the said appeal. It was also submitted that the present matters may also be heard together so that there are no conflicting views and orders.

The Bench said, “...once the issue is raised that the recommendations made by the Single Member Committee which are to be approved/ disapproved in the present case, may be in conflict or not in consonance with the Constitution, Regulations and Guidelines of the BCCI, it would only be appropriate that these matters may be tagged with Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014 and heard by the same bench.”

The Bench, thus, directed the Registry to place the papers before the Chief Justice of India for passing appropriate orders.

Cause Title: M/s The Hyderabad Cricket Association v. M/s Charminar Cricket Club & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 23)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocates Amit Sibal, Siddharth Luthra, Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate Vinay P Tripathi, AOR B. Shravanth Shanker, Advocates Vinamra Kopariha, Ankit Handa, B Yeshwanth Raj, Avishkar Singhvi, AOR Monalisa Kosaria, Advocates Rahul Jajoo, Grahita Agarwal, Vivek Kumar Singh, Byrapaneni Suyodhan, AOR Tatini Basu, Advocate Kumar Shashank, AOR Shreyasi Kunwar

Respondents: Senior Advocates Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Gaurav Agrawal, Vipin Sanghi, Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Jayanth Bhushan,Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Advocate Vinay P Tripathi, AOR B. Shravanth Shanker, Advocates Vinamra Kopariha, Ankit Handa, B Yeshwanth Raj, Avishkar Singhvi, AOR Monalisa Kosaria, Advocates Rahul Jajoo, Grahita Agarwal, Vivek Kumar Singh, Byrapaneni Suyodhan, AOR Tatini Basu, Advocate Kumar Shashank, AOR Shreyasi Kunwar

Click here to read/download Judgment