Kaleshwaram Project Row | No Notice Issued Before Inquiry Commission Report Was Made Public: KCR Tells Telangana High Court

Challenging the Inquiry Commission Report on alleged irregularities into the Kaleshwaram project, former Telangana Chief Minister & BRS Chief K. Chandrashekar Rao told the High Court that before the report was made public no notice was issued to him and other petitioners as mandated under Commission of Inquiry Act.

On February 25, a division bench of  Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Sigh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a pleas moved by KCR, former irrigation minister T. Harish Rao, Smita Sabharwal who was the former Secretary in the CM's office and former Chief Secretary Shailendra Kumar Joshi who concluded their arguments in the case. 

For context, the Kaleshwaram project is an irrigation project on the Godavari river. The inquiry into the Kaleshwaram project stemmed from an incident in 2023, wherein a Pillar in the Medigadda Barrage collapsed, striking a major blow to the 1 lakh crore project. On March 13, 2024, a Commission was set up under the Commission of Inquiry Act, Headed by Honourable Justice (retd.) Pinaki Chandra Ghose former Supreme Court Judge to look into the alleged irregularities and fix responsibility. On July 31, 2025 the Commission submitted its report.

Allegations had surfaced that the BRS party leader KCR, and the then Irrigation Minister, T. Harish Rao, played a key role in the downfall of the project. It was alleged that the construction material used was cheap, and decisions were made for selfish financial gains

Back in September 2025, the court had directed the State to take down the Report from government websites and to take no adverse order against KCR and T Harish Rao based on the findings of the report.

During the hearing on Wednesday, Senior Counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu appearing for the petitioner contended that before the report was made public no notice was issued to the petitioners under Sections 8b or 8c of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952.

He stated that the Act prescribes a procedure to be followed, and notices by the Commission need to have a sequence. That the Act distinguishes between summons (that can be issued to any individual whose evidence is needed), government-sanctioned summons under section 5 and notice issued to a person under 8b who is likely to be prejudicially affected. He said:

“In short, Section 5(2) deals with the Commission's power of summoning; Section 8-B with the Audi Alteram Partem, and Section 8-C with the Right of Cross-Examination," he said.

He said that section 4 of the Act confers upon the Commission the powers of a civil court. Through this section, the Commission carries out its 'fact-finding' function by issuance of summons, examination of witnesses and documents, requisition of public records, etc, he added. 

He argued that this section empowers the Commission to summon witnesses whose evidence is needed, irrespective of whether their own conduct is under scrutiny.

On Section 5, he submitted that this provision contains a government-sanctioned power accorded to the Commission, which allows the Commission to call for a person to furnish information. He argued that once fact finding was concluded under sections 4 and 5, only then does section 8b come into the picture.

For context Section 8b mandates that notice be issued to any individual, likely to be affected by the findings on the report, documents be served on them and they be given a chance to defend themselves and cross-examine the witnesses.

He argued that in the present case, only one "vague notice" was issued to the petitioners, which came with no supplementary evidence.

He stated that a person would only be able to defend himself properly, and lead cross-examination, when documents relied on by the other side are submitted upon furnished.

He contended no documents in support of the allegations were furnished on the petitioners and the petitioners had not way to defend themselves.

“They say notices were issued on government records, but what government records? There are so many government records, even in the report there is no mention of any documents. The other side has to throw light on who spoke? What documents showed irregularities….. nothing,” he argued.

Further he contended “The counter says that since there is no procedure for issuance of 8b notice, the petitioner should consider that notice as 8b, and since they did not put forward their claim, they should consider that opportunity lost. There may not be a procedure laid down, however, the notice needs to be issued on the principles of Justice, Equity and Good-Conscience.”

He claimed that since procedure established under law was not followed, the notice its-self is vitiated and the matter could not be transferred to the CBI.

While concluding his arguments, Naidu said “A doctor requires a certificate (to practice), what does a politician require? Nothing! All he has is his reputation and this is a calculated move to strip me off my reputation”.

Senior Counsel J. Ramchandra Rao also appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Report was made public pre-maturely, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,

Meanwhile advocate Tarun G. Reddy relied on Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. S.R. Tendulkar and argued that a Commission is only a fact-finding body and cannot affix liability.

The matter is now posted on March 2 for the arguments on behalf of the State.

Case title: Sri. Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao vs. State of Telangana and batch

WP 24837 of 2025 and connected petitions

Counsels for petitioners: senior counsel C.A. Sundaram appearing on behalf of Jaggannagari Venkat, senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for Ponugoti Mohith Rao, J. Ramchandra Rao, Senior counsel and, Tarun G. Reddy

Counsels for Respondents: Senior counsels Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, S. Niranjan Reddy, Raghu Ram and A. Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate General. I.V. Siddhivardhana Special Government Pleader.