Explained: Key arguments in Telangana High Court on Kaleshwaram case
Here are the key arguments before the Telangana High Court on the Kaleshwaram case. We simplified the arguments for you...
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court began hearing petitions challenging the Justie (Retd) PC Ghose Commission report on Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project on Thursday. Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin heard the arguments on petitions filed by former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao and former Finance Minister T. Harish Rao.
They alleged that the inquiry was politically motivated, procedurally flawed, and aimed at tarnishing their reputation. The High Court heard arguments from both sides, raising critical questions on the legality of the inquiry and the government’s handling of the report.
Here are the key points from arguments:
Allegation of political motive: Counsel for Chandrasekhar Rao argued that the 60-page summary was released at a press conference by Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy, while the full report was withheld, indicating an intent to cause political harm.
Procedural flaws cited: Lawyers for the petitioners claimed the Commission failed to issue mandatory notices under Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, thereby denying them a chance to defend themselves or cross-examine witnesses.
Precedents invoked: Senior Counsel Aryama Sundaram cited Supreme Court cases involving L.K. Advani and Kiran Bedi, where reports were quashed for similar violations of procedure.
Defense of petitioners on pier sinking in Medigadda barrage: It was argued that the sinking of a pillar in the Medigadda Barrage was due to natural factors like untimely rains, not design flaws or corruption.
State Government’s position: Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy defended the process, stating that the Cabinet approved the report based on a 60-page summary for convenience and intended to table it in the Assembly for debate.
On notices to petitioners: The Advocate General maintained that notices issued under Section 5(2) effectively served the purpose of Section 8B notices, though not explicitly labelled as such.
Commission’s stand: Counsel for the Commission argued that there is no set proforma for Section 8B notices, that notices were indeed issued, and that the report’s findings are recommendatory, not binding.
Petitioners’ rebuttal: KCR’s counsel stressed that this was a judicial inquiry commission, making its findings significant enough for possible criminal proceedings, and hence procedural safeguards were critical but ignored.
Court’s intervention and next steps: The bench pressed the Advocate General on whether the report would be acted upon before being tabled in the Assembly and reminded that the law requires government action within six months. The matter was adjourned, with the AG directed to seek instructions from the government.
Click here for a detailed report on this issue.
