Telangana High Court Upholds Kaleshwaram Probe Commission, Shields Petitioners
In a significant legal development, the Telangana High Court on Wednesday upheld the state government's decision to constitute the Justice PC Ghose Commission to investigate alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram project. The court ruled that the inquiry was neither illegal nor arbitrary, but simultaneously held that the commission's findings against the petitioners were inoperative, barring any action based on those conclusions.
Court's Ruling on Commission's Constitution and Findings
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin delivered a 102-page order, stating that the constitution of the commission under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act is neither illegal nor ultra vires of the Constitution and the Act. However, the bench emphasized that the findings rendered by the commission violated principles of natural justice and statutory safeguards, making them inoperative.
The bench explicitly noted: "The findings by the commission have been rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory safeguard provided under the Act, shall be inoperative and no action can be taken on the basis thereof." This ruling came while partly allowing petitions challenging the commission's process.
Protection Granted to Key Figures
The court found that the commission's conclusions were prejudicial to the conduct and reputation of former Chief Minister and BRS chief K Chandrasekhar Rao, former minister T Harish Rao, senior IAS officer Smita Sabharwal, and former chief secretary SK Joshi. Consequently, the bench granted them protection from any action based on the inquiry report.
In its detailed analysis, the bench pointed out that the commission's findings against "political executives—then CM and then irrigation minister" described rampant procedural and financial irregularities, holding KCR directly and vicariously accountable. These findings, the court held, were definitely prejudicial to his conduct and reputation.
Violations of Natural Justice and Statutory Requirements
The bench highlighted several procedural lapses by the commission. It ruled that the summons issued to KCR and Harish Rao did not cite adverse or incriminating material likely to affect their conduct or reputation. Rejecting the state's claim that supplied documents were sufficient, the court stated: "Mere supply of documents does not amount to giving a reasonable opportunity as mandated by the Act."
For bureaucrats Joshi and Sabharwal, the bench held that no notice containing adverse material was served. Summons issued were only to attend meetings and could not be treated as notices under section 8B of the Act. Telephonic intimation to appear showed no reasonable opportunity was given, and findings of negligence were recorded without statutory compliance.
Legal Precedents and Safeguards Cited
Citing precedents, including cases involving Kiran Bedi and LK Advani, the bench emphasized that disclosure of adverse material is mandatory. Notices must indicate allegations and sources to enable a defence. "Section 8C provides every such person a right to cross-examine and be represented by a counsel. This is considered necessary not only to test the veracity of the statement of witness but also to impeach the credibility of such a witness," the bench noted.
It further observed that none of the incriminating material relied upon was referred to in the summons, yet the inquiry recorded adverse comments prejudicial to reputation, violating statutory requirements.
Background and Arguments
During early hearings, the state informed the court that the report had been referred to the CBI and assured no action would be taken against petitioners based on its findings. The court granted protection from coercive action, reaffirmed in the final verdict.
The petitioners alleged the commission was illegally constituted and conducted inquiry without notice, treating them as witnesses while recording adverse findings. They argued that the process violated statutory safeguards and principles of natural justice.
The state defended the probe as a matter of immense public importance, pointing to alleged irregularities and ballooning costs in the project. It maintained that the commission relied on official records and statutory materials rather than personal testimonies. State counsels also argued that the petitioners had participated voluntarily and challenged the process only after learning of adverse outcomes.
The bench concluded hearings on March 12 before delivering its verdict on Wednesday, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing scrutiny of the Kaleshwaram project's administration and legal oversight.
