PC Ghose Commission report: Hearing continues in Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court continued hearing petitions challenging the Justice P C Ghosh Commission report on alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project. The State argued that the findings relate to official decisions and cannot be treated as defamation
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court on Thursday continued hearing the batch of writ petitions challenging the report submitted by the Justice P C Ghosh Commission on alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project. Senior counsels S Niranjan Reddy and P S Raghuram, appearing for the State government, submitted that the primary grievance of the four petitioners, former Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao, former Minister T Harish Rao, retired IAS officer S K Joshi and IAS officer Smita Sabharwal, related to alleged damage to their reputation and claims of defamation.
The State, however, contended that the Commission’s findings were not personal in nature. According to the counsels, the observations made in the report relate only to the discharge of official duties and administrative decisions taken in connection with the project. Therefore, it cannot be characterised as defamation.
Addressing the argument regarding non-issuance of notices under Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, they submitted that similar provisions under the Jammu and Kashmir Commissions of Inquiry Act had been interpreted by courts in a flexible manner. On that basis, it was argued that strict application of those provisions was not warranted in the present case. Senior counsels also pointed out that the Commission’s report had recorded findings against as many as eleven officers and officials. However, only four persons had approached the High Court challenging the report.
With regard to the challenge to the Government Order constituting the Commission, they clarified that the expression “judicial commission” was used only because a sitting or former judge was appointed to head the inquiry. In essence, the Commission functioned as a fact-finding body established to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the project.
After hearing the submissions, the Bench posted the matter to Friday for reply arguments on behalf of the petitioners.
