Irrespective of the merits and demerits of the Commission’s findings, the report could be “thrown out” for not following the principle laid down in the Act and reiterated by courts.
Published Aug 07, 2025 | 1:00 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 20, 2025 | 9:48 PM
File photo of the Kaleshwaram project. (Supplied)
Synopsis: Legal experts say the PC Ghose Commission report on the alleged irregularities in the construction of the Kaleswaram Lift Irrigation Scheme is redundant and infructuous in the eyes of the law, primarily due to not giving the individuals held guily an opportunity to defend themselves in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling.
Is the recently submitted report of the PC Ghose Commission — which looked into the alleged irregularities in the construction of the Kaleswaram Lift Irrigation Scheme — redundant and infructuous in the eyes of the law? YES, appears to be the answer.
This is the view of legal experts South First spoke to, who are primarily relying on one fundamental mistake made by the Commission: Not giving the individuals held guily an opportunity to defend themselves or cross-examine those who furnished adverse information against them.
This principle, as mandated under Section 8 (B) of the Commission of Inquiries Act, was laid down by the Supreme Court in a case involving senior BJP leader and former deputy prime minister LK Advani in 2003.
Relying on the same, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reiterated it in a matter between retired IAS officer S Balasubramanyam and the State of Andhra Pradesh in 2014.
Among others, the Ghose Commission held former chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao, the then-irrigation minister T Harish Rao and the then-finance minister E Rajender guilty on various counts. Several other officials were also faulted.
The report of the Commission — advisory in nature — was approved by the State Cabinet on Monday, 28 July. Later, the government announced that a special session of the Assembly would be convened to discuss the same and decide on the course of action.
In its exhaustive 660-page report, the Commission noted that Chandrashekar Rao, commonly referred to as KCR, acted as the “sole decision maker” for conceptualisation, design and execution of the project. It further noted that his direct involvement in planning, construction and operation resulted in irregularities and resultant distress.
So far, so good.
Under Section 4 of The Commissions of Inquiries Act 1952, the commission is empowered to summon and enforce the attendance of any person from any part of India, examine them on oath, receive evidence/documents etc, requisition any public record from courts or offices, among other powers.
All three — KCR, Harish and Rajender — appeared before the Commission after being summoned and answered questions posed by Ghose, a former judge of the Supreme Court. Based on the material placed before it and having examined multiple persons, the commission reached some conclusions.
And this is precisely the point where the procedural error occurred. After being summoned for examination and given the opportunity to produce documents/records, if the commission found any grounds to indict them or hold them accountable for alleged irregularities, a fresh notice under section 8(B) should have been issued to them.
The procedure has not been followed by the PC Ghosh committee during the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project inquiry.
Section 8 B of the Act reads as follows: “PERSONS LIKELY TO BE PREJUDICIALLY AFFECTED TO BE HEARD: If at any stage of the inquiry, the Commission,—
a) Considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person;
b) Is of the opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry,
The Commission shall give that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in his defence.”
In the LK Advani vs State of Bihar case, the Supreme Court said: “It may be noticed that the amendment in the form of Section 8 (B) was brought about 20 years after passing of the main Act itself. The experience during the past two decades (before the amendment) must have made the Legislature realise that it would be but necessary to give notice to a person whose conduct the Commission considers necessary to inquire into or whose reputation is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry.”
“It further provides that such a person would have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to adduce evidence in his defence. Thus, the principles of natural justice got inducted in the shape of statutory provision. It is thus incumbent on the Commission to give an opportunity to a person before any comment is made or opinion is expressed, which is likely to prejudicially affect that person. Needless to emphasise that failure to comply with principles of natural justice renders the action non est as well as the consequence thereof,” the court added.
Back in 2005, the YSR (YS Rajasekhara Reddy) government constituted a Commission of Inquiry headed by retired high court judge, THB Chalapathi, to probe alleged irregularities in the award of a consultancy to a private company for the Kuppam drip project during the previous Chandrababu Naidu regime.
The Commission held Balasubramanyam, who was Deputy Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Office when Naidu was the chief minister, along with other officials, guilty on various counts.
The IAS officer appeared before the Commission more than once, but was not issued a notice under Section 8 (B). He moved the high court on this ground.
Justice A Ramalingeswara Rao, who gave the judgement on 25 November 2014, heavily relied on the previous Supreme Court order and held that in view of the “esconsed legal principles and in absence of prior notice to the petitioners (Balasubramanyam and others) before making remarks against them, that part of the Commission of Inquiry report against them is vitiated.”
To explain the issue in simpler terms, consider this imaginary scene: Fire breaks out in the Assembly building when the chief minister and several others are present. An inquiry commission is set up. Everyone, including the chief minister, appears before it and gives their version.
In the end, the Commission tells the chief minister, “You are the one who set fire to the building.” But, before making an observation or arriving at such a conclusion, the Commission must give the chief minister the opportunity to counter it by telling him: “Look, I am going to hold you guilty. Do you want to participate in the process and defend yourself?”
Judges approached by South First said that, irrespective of the merits and demerits of the Commission’s findings, the report could be “thrown out” for not following the principle laid down in the Act and reiterated by courts. The BRS is now looking into the commission’s report to chart up its counter and defence.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
