Kaleshwaram Project Row | Telangana High Court Reserves Verdict On KCR's Plea Against Inquiry Commission's Report

The Telangana High Court on Thursday (March 13) reserved its verdict on 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 on alleged irregularities into the Kaleshwaram project.

A division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Sigh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin reserved its verdict after hearing all the parties.

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 petitioners had earlier argued 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.

It was argued that the Act prescribes a procedure to be followed, and notices by the Commission need to have a sequence. 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

Meanwhile the State argued that the notice as mandated under Section 8b of Commission of Inquiry Act was issued to the petitioners. 

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.

It was argued that petitioners had replied to the notices, showed willingness to participate, and even asked for the documents.

Further, 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. It was 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.

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

WP 24837 of 2025 and connected petitions