Kaleshwaram Project: Part Relief To KCR, Harish Rao As Telangana High Court Says Inquiry Commission Findings Violating Section 8B 'Inoperative'
The Telangana High Court on Wednesday (April 22) partly allowed pleas filed by former chief minister and BRS head K Chandrashekar Rao, former irrigation minister T. Harish Rao and others challenging the Inquiry Commission Report over alleged irregularities into the Kaleshwaram project.In doing so the court held that those findings against the petitioners which have been rendered in violation...
The Telangana High Court on Wednesday (April 22) partly allowed pleas filed by former chief minister and BRS head K Chandrashekar Rao, former irrigation minister T. Harish Rao and others challenging the Inquiry Commission Report over alleged irregularities into the Kaleshwaram project.
In doing so the court held that those findings against the petitioners which have been rendered in violation of safeguards provided under Section 8(B) of Commissions of Inquiry Act, shall not be acted upon. 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. The petitioners herein are K Chandrashekar Rao(KCR) , T. Harish Rao (THR) and retired IAS officer Shailendra Kumar Joshi as well as IAS officer Smita Sabharwal serving in Telangana.
A division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Sigh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin while pronouncing the order said:
"In view of the elaborate discussion made and the reasons recorded hereinabove, this court holds:
1. That the constitution of the commission of inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, by GO MS No. 6 March 14, 2024 is neither arbitrary, illegal or ultra vires of the Constitution of India and the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
2. The findings rendered by the Commission as are prejudicial to the conduct and reputation of the petitioners and have been rendered in violation of principles of natural justice and statutory safeguard provided under Section 8(B) of Commissions of Inquiry Act, shall be inoperative and no action can be taken on the basis there of.
The writ petitions are accordingly partly allowed in the manner indicated".
Right to reputation facet of Article 21, incumbent on Commission to disclose materials
The bench in its order observed that "right to reputation, which is a facet of right to life of a citizen" under Article 21 of the Constitution, is likely to be affected by the decision of an authority and may have civil consequence wherein such a person is entitled to mandatory notice under Section 8B giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in his defence.
"Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Commission to disclose the adverse materials whether in the form of oral or documentary evidence, which in the opinion of the Commission, would affect the conduct of such person or his reputation prejudicially by its findings...The requirement of a mandatory notice under Section 8B of the Act of 1952 is a statutory safeguard introduced in public interest to prevent loss of reputation, which is a facet of right to life to such persons. Any inference of waiver of such a right cannot be inferred by their appearance and examination by the Commission on the dates fixed," it said.
Perusing the findings of the Commission with respect to each of the four petitioners, the court said it would show that they "adversely comment upon the petitioners' conduct and are definitely prejudicial to their reputation".
"It is also evident from the nature of the summons issued upon them that none of the incriminating material relied upon by the Commission to record its findings against the petitioners were referred to or indicated in the summons. A perusal of the summons upon the petitioners, THR and KCR, would show that they were called upon to be examined and hear them upon the terms of reference of the Commission on 09.06.2025. The summons also indicated that the petitioners are at liberty to produce documents and records upon which they desire to rely upon and place before the Commission for consideration. These petitioners were examined as Commission Witnesses Nos.114 and 115 respectively. The total number of witnesses examined by the Commission was 119.
As such by the time these petitioners were examined, the Commission had almost examined rest of the witnesses. The petitioners upon receipt of the summons requested for certain documents on 06.06.2025. The said documents were supplied to them on 09.06.2025, i.e., the date of the appearance of the petitioner, THR before the Commission. The petitioner, THR was examined on 09.06.2025. The petitioner was put questions regarding the reason for construction of barrages at Medigadda, Annaram and Sandilla and also on whether cabinet approvals for construction of these barrages were taken. A perusal of the statement made by the petitioner indicates that he was examined on various aspects relating to the approval of the construction of the barrage, recommendations of the High Power Committee and the Expert Committee etc.," the court said.
Commission did not refer to adverse materials
The bench said that KCR was examined on 11.06.2025 and was asked questions relating to construction of the barrages, whether the Cabinet approval was there for construction of these barrages etc.
However, the Commission had not referred to any adverse or incriminating materials - documentary or oral, in its summons to these petitioners, which in the opinion of the Commission were likely to affect the conduct or reputation of KCR.
It said that State's argument that T Harish Rao (THR) and K Chandrashekhar Rao (KCR) were fully cognizant of Cabinet resolutions and reports of various Committees, which on their request were also supplied to them amounts to substantive compliance of reasonable opportunity of being heard and to defend themselves as per Section 8B, does not merit acceptance.
The court observed that both THR and KCR were not offered reasonable opportunity to defend themselves during their examination on the materials relied upon by the Commission to record its findings which are impinging upon their conduct and reputation.
It said that mere supply of the documents on the same day, i.e., 09.06.2025 to THR would not amount to giving a reasonable opportunity as contemplated under Section 8B which was inserted with a specific object and purpose to allow such persons notice of the adverse materials collected and available with the Commission for being confronted during the course of their examination.
Supplying documents asked for by KCR on 09.06.2025 two days before his examination cannot be considered as discharge of the statutory responsibility upon the Commission to provide the incriminating materials on which it was to rely and form opinion on the conduct or reputation of the petitioner as contemplated under Section 8B.
"It is not in dispute that the materials sought for and supplied by the Commission to these petitioners on 09.06.2025 on 11.06.2025 were several and voluminous. Their examination on such materials either on the same day 09.06.2025 or 11.06.2025 in the respective cases cannot be construed as reasonable notice for defending themselves on questions put to them in relation to the decision making process, execution, implementation, operation and maintenance, awarding of tender of the three barrages. As such, whether the summons or notices upon these petitioners specifically referred to Section 8B of the Act of 1952 or not could not be of any significance as in substance the summons did not conform to the requirement of proper notice under Section 8B of the Act of 1952, to which the petitioners were entitled before any findings or comments adverse and prejudicial to their conduct and reputation could be recorded by the Commission. The argument to the contrary made on behalf of the respondents-State does not merit acceptance," the bench said.
Findings were prejudicial to reputation
It said that the Commission's findings on lapses by the petitioners KCR and THR who were the then CM and Irrigation Minister, that the entire project was characterised by rampant and brazen procedural and financial irregularities amounts to adverse comment upon the conduct of the petitioners and are prejudicial to their reputation.
The Commission has also recorded that KCR is "directly and vicariously" accountable for irregularities and illegalities in planning, construction, completion, operation and maintenance of the three barrages and his involvement and directions are the cause and result of irregularities and distress to the three barrages. These findings, the bench said, are "definitely prejudicial" to the petitioner's conduct and reputation.
With respect to the two officials the court said that Commission did not serve any notice containing any adverse materials upon these two petitioners as contemplated under Section 8B. The summons issued to the two officials was only to attend the meeting with the Chairman of the Commission. This, in no way be treated as summons under Section 8B, the bench added.
The court also noted that the Commission recorded adverse findings on their conduct and reputation without giving them any reasonable opportunity of being heard as required under Section 8B.
"The contention of the respondents-State that the findings rendered by the Commission are confined to their role as public servants and do not impinge upon their personal conduct or reputation does not merit acceptance. The Commission has recorded that petitioner, Smita Sabharwal was not diligent, rather negligent and irresponsible in discharge of her duties and is also liable for action for violation of the Business Rules of the Government. Similarly, the Commission has rendered a finding against the petitioner, Shailendra Kumar Joshi as being liable for intentionally suppressing the Report of the Expert Committee constituted under G.O.Rt.No.28 with an oblique motive to enable the Government to construct the project at Medigadda...The findings cannot be construed as innocuous in nature. Such findings of the Commission prejudicially affect the conduct and reputation of the petitioners," the bench said.
With respect to the constitution of the Commission the court held that mere use of 'judicial' in G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.03.2024 (notifying the commission) does not make the Commission a Judicial Inquiry. It held that the Commission was constituted to undertake fact finding enquiry on the terms of reference within the scope and mandate of the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
"Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the appointment of the Commission is neither illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional nor ultra vires the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952," the court said.
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.
Case title: Sri. Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao vs. State of Telangana and batch
WP 26367, 24835, 24837 and 29352 2025
Advocate Tarun G. Reddy appeared for petitioner Shailendra Kumar Joshi in W.P.No.26367 of 2025. Senior advocate S.Niranjan Reddy, along with Advocate General A.Sudarshan Reddy and Special Government Pleader I. V. Siddhivardhana appeared for State in in W.P.No.26367 of 2025.
Senior advocate C.A.Sundaram appeared for advocate Jaggannagari Venkat Sai for petitioner T Harish Rao in W.P.No.24835 of 2025. Senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi representing Advocate General appeared for the State in W.P.No.24835 of 2025
Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for advocate Ponugoti Mohith Rao for petitioner Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao in W.P.No.24837 of 2025. Senior advocate S.Niranjan Reddy, along with Advocate General A.Sudarshan Reddy and Special Government Pleader I. V. Siddhivardhana appeared for State in W.P.No.24837 of 2025.
Senior advocate J.Ramachandra Rao appeared for Jagannagari Venkat Sai for petitioner Smita Sabharwal in W.P.No.29352 of 2025. Senior advocate P. Sri Raghu Ram, representing Advocate General appeared for State in W.P.No.29352 of 2025