Telangana HC directs government to remove Ghose Commission report from public domain
The Telangana High Court criticized the state for uploading the P.C. Ghose Commission report in the public domain and directed its removal. Former CM K. Chandrashekhar Rao and Finance Minister Harish Rao challenged the report, with hearings adjourned for five weeks
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Friday criticised the State government for placing the PC Ghose Commission report in public domain. A bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin observed that the report should not have been uploaded in public domain when the government had already accepted it and resolved to place it before the Assembly for discussion. The court directed the government to remove the report from the official website, if it had been uploaded.
The bench continued hearing cases filed by former Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao and former Finance Minister T Harish Rao which sought quashing the report of the Ghose Commission that probed alleged irregularities in the execution of the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project. Advocate General A Sudharshan Reddy placed written instructions before the court which stated that “Cabinet, during its meeting held on 04.08.2025, resolved to accept the report of the Commission of Inquiry and further resolved to place the same before the Assembly for discussion.” Further, Reddy categorically affirmed before the court that further action on the report would be taken only after discussion on the Floor of the Assembly.
Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, representing Harish Rao, contended that placing the report in the Assembly itself constituted action. He said the law prescribes that Commission report can be placed in Assembly within six months, therefore placing an action taken report in the House for discussion makes sense, but not just the report. He accordingly stressed the need for interim order to stay the report. The bench also took note of the petitioner’s contention that not serving notices under 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 would violate principles of natural justice and the same would be improper and impermissible in law.
However, the bench found no force in the submission that it would touch upon the conduct and reputation of the petitioners. Based on the undertaking given by the State government that no action would be taken against the petitioner based on the findings of the report, the bench held no interim directions would be required at this stage.
The bench observed that 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.
Senior Advocate S Niranjan Reddy, representing the Commission, stated that the report was only advisory in nature. He said public representatives should be open-minded and suggested that they should not see the findings in the report as defamatory. Opposing this stand, senior counsel Dama Sheshadri Naidu, appearing for former Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao, argued that reputation is vital for a political leader’s future and contended that the Commission had exceeded its mandate by making submissions on placing the report before the Assembly. At this stage, the Advocate General clarified that Niranjan Reddy was representing the State government and not the Commission itself.
The matter was adjourned for five weeks to enable the State to file its detailed counter affidavits and for further hearing.
