ED Allegations Raise Questions Over Continuation of Harish Singla as DDCA Treasurer

Concerns over fiduciary responsibility, financial oversight and institutional credibility of cricket body

New Delhi: Recent reports concerning an Enforcement Directorate investigation and allegations of financial wrongdoing involving Harish Singla have raised questions over his continuation as Treasurer of the Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA), a position carrying significant financial and fiduciary responsibilities.

The issue assumes particular significance because the office of Treasurer is not merely ceremonial. Under the DDCA’s Articles of Association, the Treasurer is entrusted with receiving monies payable to the association, maintaining accounts of receipts and expenditure, preparing financial statements and budgets, signing audited annual accounts, placing financial statements before the Apex Council and General Body, and investing or disbursing DDCA funds in accordance with applicable directions. (BCCI Documents)

The DDCA’s own 2024–25 Annual Report identifies Harish Singla as Treasurer and records his signature on the association’s financial statements. (Delhi & District Cricket Association)

ED allegations

According to reports published in May 2026 concerning an ED investigation, the agency alleged that Deepak Singla, along with Ashok Kumar Mittal, Raman Singla and Harish Singla, was connected with an alleged fraud involving Oriental Bank of Commerce exceeding ₹150 crore. Reports further referred to allegations concerning movement of funds through entities in Singapore and suspected hawala channels. (Hindustan Times)

These are, importantly, allegations reported in connection with an investigation and should not be treated as a judicial finding of guilt. The persons concerned remain entitled to due process and to contest the allegations in accordance with law.

However, the seriousness of the allegations inevitably raises a separate institutional question: whether a person facing such allegations should continue to occupy a position involving direct responsibility for the finances and financial oversight of a major sporting institution.

Why the Treasurer’s position is different

The concern is not simply about reputation. The DDCA’s own governing documents assign the Treasurer responsibilities directly connected with the association’s money and financial reporting.

The Treasurer’s responsibilities include:

* maintaining accounts of DDCA’s receipts and expenditure;
* preparing statements of accounts;
* participating in the preparation of budgets;
* signing audited annual accounts and financial statements;
* placing financial statements before the Apex Council and General Body;
* dealing with investment and disbursement of DDCA funds; and
* coordinating with auditors and the CEO regarding utilisation of funds by affiliated clubs and other grantees. (BCCI Documents)

The DDCA’s Finance Committee is similarly responsible for reviewing the association’s financial position, financial processes, payments, budgets and audit reports. The DDCA’s current Finance Committee page also lists Harish Singla as a member. (Delhi & District Cricket Association)

Against this backdrop, allegations concerning financial impropriety involving the very person entrusted with financial stewardship naturally create a perception and institutional-confidence issue, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the investigation.

A question of fiduciary confidence

The central issue, therefore, is not whether an allegation automatically establishes misconduct. It does not.

The more fundamental question is whether public and institutional confidence in the financial stewardship of DDCA can be maintained when its Treasurer is himself facing reported allegations connected with a financial investigation.

A Treasurer occupies a position of trust. Such an office requires not merely technical competence but also the highest level of confidence regarding financial integrity, transparency and accountability.

Sports associations, particularly those handling substantial revenues, sponsorships, grants, player-related payments and infrastructure expenditure, have a responsibility to maintain governance standards that inspire confidence among members, players, officials, sponsors and the public.

Should DDCA consider recusal or temporary step-aside?

In these circumstances, it would be reasonable for the DDCA’s Apex Council and General Body to consider whether Mr. Singla should voluntarily step aside from financial responsibilities pending clarity on the allegations, or whether an independent mechanism should examine the issue.

Such a step would not amount to a declaration of guilt.

On the contrary, temporary recusal pending an independent examination could protect both interests: it would safeguard the DDCA’s institutional credibility while ensuring that the individual concerned is not prejudged before the legal process reaches its conclusion.

The DDCA could also consider an independent review of any potential conflict of interest and ensure that financial decisions involving the Treasurer are subject to appropriate checks and independent oversight during the pendency of the matter.

The larger governance question

The controversy ultimately raises a broader question about governance in cricket administration:

Can a person facing serious, publicly reported allegations concerning financial wrongdoing continue to exercise a fiduciary role over the finances of a cricket association without an independent review of his suitability to remain in that position?

The answer need not be based on guilt or innocence at this stage. It can instead be based on the principle of institutional prudence.

The objective should be to protect the integrity of the DDCA’s financial administration, preserve confidence in its audited accounts and ensure that every person entrusted with the association’s finances is beyond reasonable questions concerning financial propriety.

Until the allegations are conclusively resolved, the DDCA’s leadership may therefore face legitimate questions from its members and stakeholders about whether continuation in a fiduciary office is compatible with the standards of transparency, accountability and public confidence expected from the Treasurer of one of India’s prominent cricket associations.

The issue is ultimately one of institutional credibility: when the office carries responsibility for safeguarding an organisation’s finances, should the organisation wait for a final legal determination, or should it adopt the higher governance standard of ensuring unquestioned confidence in the person entrusted with that responsibility?