The Supreme Court of India will examine whether the office-bearers of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) can be classified as “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), a determination that will have significant implications for corruption-related prosecutions involving sports bodies.
A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale was hearing a set of petitions challenging the Telangana High Court’s refusal to quash multiple FIRs registered against HCA officials. The FIRs, filed by the Telangana Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), allege large-scale corruption, criminal conspiracy, and financial misappropriation connected to the construction and functioning of the Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium, Hyderabad.
According to the charge sheet filed by the ACB, the alleged irregularities include:
• Inflating the stadium’s construction cost from an initial estimate of ₹31 crore to more than ₹108 crore.
• Procuring bucket chairs at ₹910 each against a prevailing market price of approximately ₹450, leading to an alleged excess payment of ₹2.07 crore.
• Irregularities in ticket sales that resulted in a ₹44 lakh sales tax penalty on HCA.
• Awarding contracts for grounds and floodlight installation without following tender processes.
The accused-petitioners, who are officials of HCA, argued that the PC Act does not extend to them, contending that:
• The Hyderabad Cricket Association is not “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
• HCA does not receive routine government aid or financial assistance.
• Its office-bearers are therefore not “public servants” and cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Telangana High Court rejected these arguments, holding that there was a prima facie case to treat HCA officials as public servants.
The Court noted that:
• The HCA had been granted 23.27 guntas of prime government land for stadium construction on a highly subsidized lease of ₹1,00,000 per annum for 25 years.
• Historical financial grants had been extended by the State.
Relying on landmark Supreme Court rulings in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) and BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015), the High Court observed that even if such associations are not “State” under Article 12, they nevertheless perform public functions. Accordingly, its office-bearers could prima facie be treated as “public servants” under the PC Act.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s ruling, the accused officers approached the Supreme Court. While issuing notice, the apex court framed the central question of law:
“Whether the office-bearers of the Hyderabad Cricket Association can be considered public servants for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?”
The Court has directed that the matter be listed for detailed hearing on a non-miscellaneous day in November 2025.
Cause Title
Nandlal Shivlal Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Telangana & Anr.
