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 gainsThe 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,...

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

Fareedunnisa Huma

Tags