Kaleshwaram Project | Notice For Inquiry Issued To KCR, Others; Procedure Under Law Was Followed: State To Telangana High Court

The Telanagana Government told the High Court that a notice as mandated under Section 8b of Commission of Inquiry Act was issued to former Chief Minister & BRS Chief K. Chandrashekar Rao in an inquiry over alleged irregularities into the Kaleshwaram project.

The State government submitted before Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Sigh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin that the former chief minister, 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 had replied to the notice and willingly participated in the inquiry proceedings.

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 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

The court was hearing pleas moved by KCR and others challenging the Inquiry Commission's Report. They had concluded their arguments on February 25. The petitioners had earlier argued that the report was made public without issuance of an 8b notice, which granted them the right of hearing and cross-examination.

Appearing for the respondents, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that the inception of the matter can be traced back to 2023, when the National Dam Safety Authority and the Ministry of Jal Shakti took cognisance of the Kaleshwaram issue and noted irregularities.

He further argued, that the findings of the Commission could not form grounds for legal prosecution. He explained that solely on the findings of the Commission, the criminal/civil court will not hold the petitioners guilty. He argued that there would be a full-fledged trial, and the court would come to its own independent finding, based on the evidence produced before it.

“To prosecute an individual, I cannot rely on the Commission's Report, and will have to start de novo by providing all evidence to you,” he stated.

He further argued that findings of the report do not bind civil or criminal courts, and the courts have to come to their own conclusions.

Singhvi argued, that a notice was issued to the petitioners and that they had replied to the notices, showed willingness to participate, and even asked for the documents. That, in response to this request, 12 Cabinet Resolutions were furnished to the petitioners, he said. 

“Nowhere in the replies is there a whisper of this 'procedure not being followed'. Over 100 exhibits were marked; nowhere in the replies is it stated that they did not understand the contents. There was a notice, there was participation, and there was a disclosure about the issues. Now, whatever this may be called, the action is traced back to a statute,” Singhvi said. 

He submitted that affidavits of almost 100 people were taken into consideration by the Commission, which had conducted site visits, and relied on 3 separate reports to come to its findings. He also contended that matters of public importance deserve inquiry.

Meanwhile the Advocate General A Sudershan Reddy submitted that the notice issued to the petitioners must be considered as a notice under Section 8b, because the statute does not prescribe a specific format for the notice.

He argued that the petitioners understood the allegations made against them, they participated in the inquiry proceedings and even showed willingness to assist further if required. He argued, that approaching the High Court was just an "afterthought".

Referring to the reports of the Expert Committee and the independent Committees, the Advocate General argued that both the committees recommended against the construction of the barrage that collapsed, causing a Rs. 1 Lakh Crore loss to the public exchequer. He argued that it was finally the decision of the ex-chief minister to ignore the recommendations of the committee and set up the barrage at Medigadda.

He further argued that the financial sanction to the barrage was accorded first, then the construction, and then the design was laid out. Additionally, he pointed out that, the sanctioning of Rs. 2191 Crores was not placed before the Cabinet for approval.

Meanwhile also appearing for the respondents, Senior Advocate P. Sri Raghu Ram argued that the word 'notice' does not find a place in section 8b of the Commission of Inquiry's Act. He argued that the statue mandates information and a reasonable hearing.

He argued that the petitioner was first given a notice in writing, and later on was asked to come and depose her (Smita Sabharwal) side of the story through telephonic communication. That when she came, the was confronted with all the documents, and the same formed part of the Minutes.

When the Bench asked the Senior counsel if notice was issued, he said, “It is not the contention of the petitioner that she was taken by surprise without a notice, this is just an afterthought. Justice was done to the procedure. If she had an objection, it should have been raised then itself.”

Conlcuding the arguments for the respondents, senior advocate S. Niranjan Reddy argued that the report did not allege irregularities on personal conduct of the petitioners, but public conduct under an official capacity.

It was argued that the usage of the word 'judicial' itself would not change the nature of the Commission. He pointed out that a Commission is called a judicial Commission when a retired judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court presides over it.

He further pointed out that the report is extremely broad and names almost 11 other people apart from the petitioners herein.

“It refers to the finance minister, the Engineer in Chief of the project, etc. But all these persons are not before the court, because they understand that it is not individual castigation and the report itself is not the basis for any charge,” he said. 

He argued that, that the petitioner could approach the Court only under a limited window if they could prove that they were personally defamed by the report, and thus the Principles of Natural Justice should have been applicable in a strict sense.

He further argued, that the report does not make claims that decisions (regarding the Kaleshwaram Project) were made for personal gains. That the report only outlined public duties.

Additionally, he contended that the pleading of the petitioners does not show specific allegations.

“The test would be, if they filed a suit for defamation and damages, and they cannot succeed there, then they cannot succeed here. Specifically, when its about public conduct and when report arrays many other officials,” he said.  Lastly, he pointed out that all the decisions made cause a significant loss to the public ex-charger.

“Telangana is in a debt of 8 of 9 lakh crore, out of which, one lakh we can owe to the Kaleshwaram Project,” he added. 

The matter is now listed on March 12. 

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

WP 24837 of 2025 and connected petitions

Counsel for petitioner: Tarun G. Reddy, C.A.Sundaram, senior counsel appearinf for Jaggannagari Vankat Sai, Senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for Ponugoti Mohith Rao, Senior Counsel J. Ramachandra Rao.

Counsel for respondents: Senior Counsels Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, S. Niranjan Reddy, A. Sudharshan Reddy and P. Sri Rahu Ram assisted by I.V. Siddhivardhana, Spl GP and A. Manoranjitha Reddy