Telangana High Court Directs Take Down Of Inquiry Report On Alleged Irregularities In Kaleshwaram Project From Govt Website
The Telangana High Court on Friday (August 22) directed removal of Commission of Inquiry report on alleged irregularities into Kaleshwaram Project from the official government website if already uploaded.For context the Kaleshwaram project is an irrigation project on the Godavari river.During the hearing today, the state government gave an assuarance that it shall not act on the findings in...
The Telangana High Court on Friday (August 22) directed removal of Commission of Inquiry report on alleged irregularities into Kaleshwaram Project from the official government website if already uploaded.
For context the Kaleshwaram project is an irrigation project on the Godavari river.
During the hearing today, the state government gave an assuarance that it shall not act on the findings in the report before it is placed infront of the legislative assembly for consideration and discussion. On Thursday the high court had asked the state's counsel to get instructions on whether it shall take action based on the findings in the report.
In doing so the high court observed that if the state government were to place the report before the legislative assembly for a decision it should not have been
The order was passed by a division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin in pleas filed by BRS's T Harish Rao and K. Chandrashekar Rao–who was also the former chief minister, challenging the findings of the report claiming non-compliance of the statutory procedure and other irregularities.
"Before Assembly undertakes a discussion on the Commission's Report, and moreover, when the Government accepted the report and resolved to place before the Assembly for discussion, the Report should not be placed in public domain. In case the Report has been uploaded on any official website of the Government, it should be taken down,” the bench said.
The petitioners contended that not only did the report make prejudicial, illegal and unconditional statements against them, it was also broadcast in the media and uploaded on various platforms for scrutiny without as much as serving notice, along with relevant documents on the petitioners.
The petitioners contended that as per section 8b and 9c of the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952; person likely to be prejudiced by the report should be put to notice, supplied with all relevant documents and given a chance to defend themselves. 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 petitioner's apprehended that if findings recorded by the Commission touching upon their conduct and reputation without following the prescription of law under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice are acted upon, the same would be improper and impermissible in law.
While refraining from commenting on the findings of the report, the Bench said:
“The learned Advocate General in his reply has made categorical statements today on the basis of the written instructions contained in the letter dated 21.08.2025 that further action on the report could be after the discussion on the Floor of the Assembly. It therefore, appears that the apprehension of the petitioners that action could be taken on the basis of the findings of the Report allegedly touching upon the conduct and reputation of the petitioners, is misplaced.The Act provides for laying down the Report of the Commission before the Floor of the House, where it is to be debated and discussed. At this stage, when the State Government has come out with a categorical assertion that no action is going to be taken on the basis of any such findings in the Report, no further interim directions are required to be passed in that regard,” the bench further said.
Background
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 this year the Commission submitted its report.
On August 21, the petitioners approached the High Court challenging GO. No 6 by way of which a commission for inquiry into the Kaleshwaram Project was formed.
The plea sought to declare that the action of the Chief Secretary General Administraion and Secretary Irrigation and Command Area Development, in making repeated publications of the report dated 31/07/2025 without furnishing a copy to the Petitioners, as manifestly arbitrary, illegal, mala fide, biased and premeditated and violative of the principles of natural justice.
The petitioners contended that the Kaleshwaram Project was a major success and converted the dry and arid region of the Telangana Deccan Plateau into the 'rice bowl of the nation'. They contended that all mandatory clearances were obtained before the commencement of the project and the collapse of the pillar could neither be attributed to the design, engineering or location.
The petitioners contended that they took part in the inquiry diligently and answered all the questions put forth to them in an honest manner. However, to their dismay, through press reports, they found out that the report had been published. That, the press release was conducted in a manner to discredit and defame the petitioners, without as much as serving on them a notice as prescribed under 8b of the Act.
When the matter was taken up yesterday, the State vehemently contended that notices were issued on the petitioners, documents were served on them, and they also took part in the cross-examination. The State argued that as per the judgement in Kiran Bedi, the petitioners were the last witnesses to be cross-examined, thus, in conformity with the statutory procedure.
It was also submitted that the report was not uploaded on any official website of the government, and merely a consolidated version was placed before the Cabinet, as the executive to render a decision whether the report should be placed before the Assembly or not.
Thereafter an adjournment was sought by the Advocate General to get instructions as to whether action will be taken against the petitioners based on the report, before it was placed before the Assembly.
Today, when the matter was taken up, the AG, on written instructions submitted that no action will be taken against the petitioners until a finding is arrived at by the Assembly.
Relying on the Raj Gopal case, it was also reiterated that the criticism made in an official report would not amount to defamation and that people in the public domain should be open to criticism.
The matter is next posted on October 7
Case title: Thanneeru Harish Rao v/s The State of Telangana AND
Sri. Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao v/s The State of Telangana
Case detail: WP 24835 of 2025 AND WP 24837/2025
Counsel for petitioner: Senior advocate Aryama Sundaram appearing for advocate Jaggannagari Venkat Sai, Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for advocate Ponugoti Mohith Rao
Counsel for repsondents: Advocate General A. Sudharshan Reddy, assisted by I.V.Siddivardhana and Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, Special Government Pleaders. S.Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel, appeared for respondent No.3