KCR said that he should have been given the opportunity available under Section 8-B and Section 8-C of the Act.
Published Aug 21, 2025 | 12:44 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 21, 2025 | 12:44 PM
BRS chief KCR.
Synopsis: Former Telangana chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao and former minister T Harish Rao have filed two separate petitions in the high court to suspend the operation of the Justice PC Ghose Commission report on irregularities in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme, claiming violations of the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
In an attempt to turn the tables against the state government, former Telangana chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao and former minister T Harish Rao have filed two separate petitions in the high court to suspend the operation of the Justice PC Ghose Commission report. The report on “irregularities in Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme” was submitted to the state government on 31 July 2025.
The prayer was: “Suspend the operation of the report dated 31.07.2025 pending disposal of the main writ petition and to pass such other order or orders as the court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
The two petitions were more or less similar, and the two leaders listed the Chief Secretary, Secretary, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department of Telangana and the Commission of Inquiry on Kaleshwaram Project, headed by former Supreme Court of India judge Pinaki Chandra Ghose.
Chandrashekar Rao, popularly known as KCR, in his 313-page petition, drew the court’s attention to how the Commission had violated the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, under which it was set up, while finalising its report.
KCR’s contentions that the Commission had exceeded the provisions of the Act were similar to those that South First had pointed out in its report titled “Why PC Ghose Commission report on Kaleshwaram is legally redundant, infructuous”.
The report had pointed out the fundamental mistake of not giving the individual held guilty an opportunity to defend themselves or cross-examine those who furnished adverse information against them.
The report also pointed out that, among others, the Ghose Commission held KCR, Harish Rao and the then-finance minister Eatala Rajender guilty on several counts.
The procedural error, the report pointed out, was that after being summoned for examination and given the opportunity to produce documents and records, a fresh notice should have been issued under Section 8-B if the Commission found any grounds to indict them or hold them accountable for alleged irregularities.
This procedure was not followed by the Commission in its inquiry into the Kaleswaram Lift Irrigation Project. KCR, in his petition filed with the high court on 19 August, listed the same grounds in pressing for his prayer for the report’s suspension.
He said that the terms of reference of the Commission presumed negligence, irregularities and lacunae in the planning, designing and construction of the Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages of the Kaleshwaram project.
The former chief minister said that he was served a summons on 20 June 2025, which stated that he had served as chief minister during the relevant period of planning, contract awards, designing, construction and inauguration of Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla and that the Commission wished to hear him regarding the terms of reference as a “witness”.
He also pointed out that whenever there is an inquiry into a person’s conduct or when an inquiry proceeds in such a manner that prejudicially affects a person’s reputation, the commission of inquiry shall mandatorily provide separate notice to the said person and afford a reasonable opportunity to hear such person and permit the production of evidence. These provisions are not directory but mandatory, he reminded.
KCR said that it was incumbent upon the Commission to give an opportunity to a person before any comment is made or opinion is expressed in its report, which is likely to prejudicially affect the person. Needless to emphasise that failure to comply with the principles of natural justice renders the action non est as well as the consequences thereof.
He stated that a person need not wait for government action if an inquiry commission’s report contains observations that could damage their reputation, especially when no opportunity was given to explain their conduct.
KCR said that ex facie the allegations made in the report impeach and question the petitioner’s conduct while he served as the chief minister. They arbitrarily and illegally, he argued, impugn his reputation, which would cause prejudicial and adverse effects on his standing and would subject him to public scorn and ridicule, not to mention potential future penal and civil liabilities.
Given such extreme circumstances, KCR said that he should have been given the opportunity available under Section 8-B and Section 8-C of the Act. It is not within the ambit of the Commission to prejudicially affect any person’s reputation under the pretext of inquiry without affording an opportunity.
He quoted Section 8-B in the petition thus: “Persons likely to be prejudicially affected should be heard, if at any stage of the inquiry, the Commission considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person or is of opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry. In such instances, the Commission shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and allow him to produce evidence in his defence.”
Referring to the Supreme Court verdict in State of Bihar vs Lal Kishan Advani (2003), KCR held that it was necessary to notice a person whose conduct the Commission considers necessary to inquire into during the course of the inquiry or whose reputation is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry.
He said the verdict further provides that such a person should have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce evidence in his defence. Thus, the principles of natural justice were incorporated in the shape of a statutory provision in the verdict.
In the present case, he said, a careful examination of the Summons dated 20 May makes it abundantly clear that he was merely treated as a witness under Section 5(2) by the Commission.
He said nowhere in the entire notice was there any indication that there existed a body of evidence contrary to his interests and that if the report was published, it would prejudicially affect his reputation.
The former chief minister said that the Commission did not afford any opportunity to him or his counsels to cross-examine any witnesses who provided evidence that might be contrary to the petitioner’s interests. He added that, in the absence of such notice, the Commission has violated the mandatory provisions under Section 8-B and Section 8-C of the Act.
The former chief minister, for ready reference to the court, gave the terms of reference of the Commission as enunciated in the relevant Government Order. They are:
a) To enquire into the negligence, irregularities and lacunae in planning, designing and construction of Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages.
b) To enquire into the manner of award and execution of the contract, including but not limited to deviations in the contract and the following of the strict financial discipline in the execution of such contract.
c) To enquire into the negligence and lacunae in the operation and maintenance of three barrages by the agencies concerned and the department, thereby leading to major damage to the structure.
d) To enquire into the quality control and monitoring aspects, negligence and other malpractices by the agencies/contractors and the department.
e) To enquire, identify and fix up responsibilities for any authority/official who extended undue favours to the agencies/contractors in terms of allowing unjustified EOTs (Extension of Time), wrong completion of work certificates, premature releasing of bank guarantees and such other matters.
f) The Commission shall fix responsibilities for the lapses identified by it during its enquiry into the above matters and the financial implications of the lapses identified.
g) Any other matter that might be referred by the Government at a later date.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
