KCR, Harish move Telangana High Court against Ghose Commission report; call it politically motivated
Former Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao and ex-Irrigation Minister T. Harish Rao have challenged the Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose Commission’s report on the Kaleshwaram project in the High Court, calling it politically motivated, defamatory, and a violation of natural justice.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao and former Irrigation Minister T. Harish Rao have moved the Telangana High Court challenging the Justice (Retd.) Pinaki Chandra Ghose Commission’s report on the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, calling it ‘politically motivated’ and a ‘witch-hunt orchestrated by the present regime’.
Also Read
The Commission, constituted by the Congress government through GO Ms. No. 6 dated March 14, 2024, submitted its report on July 31, focusing on alleged irregularities in the construction of the Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages.
Report termed defamatory
In his writ petition, Chandrashekhar Rao alleged that the Commission’s findings were ‘perverse, defamatory and based on conjectures’ rather than technical evidence. He said that the Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction and was ‘reduced to a political tool’ to tarnish his image. The report, he argued, was made public through a press conference and PowerPoint presentation on August 4, without giving him or other stakeholders an opportunity to respond, violating the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and principles of natural justice.
Harish Rao, in his plea, contended that the inquiry was ‘a premeditated exercise to vilify political opponents’, and that the observations made against him were ‘scurrilous and malicious’.
Both petitioners said the exercise was aimed at creating political mileage rather than finding facts. The petitions sought to quash the Commission’s report in its entirety and restrain the State government from relying on it for any action. They also emphasized that inquiry reports were recommendatory in nature, citing Supreme Court precedents.
The Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary of the Irrigation and CAD Department, and the Commission of Inquiry have been named as respondents. The writ petitions are likely to be listed shortly before a single judge.
