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 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 materialsThe 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 materialsThe 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 ...

Kaleshwaram Project: Part Relief To KCR, Harish Rao As Telangana High Court Says Inquiry Commission Findings Violating Section 8B 'Inoperative'

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Kaleshwaram Project: Part Relief To KCR, Harish Rao As Telangana High Court Says Inquiry Commission Findings Violating Section 8B 'Inoperative'

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers