Are Hyderabad Cricket Association Officers 'Public Servants' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act? Supreme Court To Examine

The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the officers of Hyderabad Cricket Association (“HCA”) fall within the category of public servants to be tried in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”).

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale heard the petition filed against the Telangana High Court's decision refusing to quash the FIRs against the petitioners in connection with charges of corruption, conspiracy, and misappropriation related to HCA activities, primarily the inflated construction cost of Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium, Hyderabad.

The cases, investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), stem from complaints filed by members of local cricket clubs. The charge sheet filed by the ACB alleged large scale irregularities in the construction of cricket stadium such as inflating the stadium's construction cost from an initial estimate of ₹31 crore to over ₹108 crore, paying excessive prices for furnishings, such as bucket chairs procured for ₹910 each against a market price of ₹450, leading to an alleged excess payment of ₹2.07 crore, irregularities in ticket sales that led to a ₹44 lakh sales tax fine imposed on the HCA, and awarding contracts for grounds and floodlights without following tender processes.

The Accused-petitioners argued that the PC Act did not apply to them. They contended that the HCA is not a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, does not receive government aid, and its members are therefore not "public servants."

The High Court rejected the main defense of the accused-petitioners that HCA officials are not "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It found a prima facie case that HCA received government financial assistance through historical grants and, crucially, a prime land (23.27 guntas) on a highly subsidized lease of ₹1,00,000 per annum for 25 years to build the stadium.

Citing Supreme Court precedents of Zee Tele Films Ltd. vs. Union of India (2005) and BCCI vs. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015), which established that cricket governing bodies discharge "public functions" akin to state functions., the High Court also held that HCA discharges public functions, therefore its office bearers could prima facie be considered "public servants" under the PC Act.

Accordingly, after dismissal of the petitioner's quashing petitions, the accused-HCA officers approached the Supreme Court, where it framed the aforesaid question of law to be adjudicated upon, and directed the listing of the case on a non-miscellaneous day in November 2025.

Cause Title: NANDLAL SHIVLAL YADAV & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. C. Nageswara Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikram Hegde, AOR Mr. C S Srrikar, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Hansaraman, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, Adv. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Dharmesh D k Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, Adv. Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Dhananjay Yadav, Adv.