Telangana High Court grants interim protection to Smita Sabharwal

The Telangana High Court has granted interim protection to IAS officer Smita Sabharwal, restraining the state from taking any action based on the Justice P.C. Ghose Commission’s report on the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project. Sabharwal challenged the report and its legality, citing lack of due process and defamatory content.

By Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court on Thursday granted interim protection to IAS officer Smita Sabharwal, restraining the State from taking any adverse action against her based on the findings of the Justice PC Ghose Commission report on alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project.

---

The court made it clear that the interim order will remain in force until the next hearing on October 7, when her writ petition will be heard along with similar cases filed by former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao, former Irrigation Minister T. Harish Rao, and former Chief Secretary S.K. Joshi.

Smita Sabharwal, who served as Additional Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Office during the BRS regime, approached the High Court seeking to quash both the Commission’s findings against her and the Government Order appointing the Commission itself.

She alleged that the Commission indicted her without issuing mandatory notices under Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The petition stated that the report made “scurrilous, defamatory and prejudicial observations” against her, including allegations of bypassing business rules and directly supervising the construction of Kaleshwaram barrages.

She contended that she had no role in decision-making or grant of administrative sanctions and that her reputation had been unfairly tarnished.

Senior Counsel J. Ramachandra Rao, representing the petitioner, submitted that the Commission’s findings were illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide, and pointed out that the government had already tabled the report in the Legislative Assembly before handing over the matter to the CBI through G.O.Ms. No. 104 dated September 1, 2025.

He argued that the report was not only beyond jurisdiction but also a deliberate attempt to damage the petitioner’s career and standing.

Special Government Pleader I.V. Siddhivardhana, appearing for the State, informed the bench that no adverse action was being contemplated against Smita Sabharwal at present on the basis of the Commission’s report.

He maintained that since the case had been handed over to the CBI for independent investigation into allegations of embezzlement of public funds and irregularities in the project, the petitioner’s apprehension of imminent action was misplaced. The State sought 10 days’ time to file a detailed counter-affidavit.

Recording these submissions, the bench extended to Smita Sabharwal the same protection earlier granted to KCR, Harish Rao, and SK Joshi in their challenges to the Commission’s report.

It ordered that “no adverse action based upon the findings of the Commission’s report be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing” and adjourned the matter to October 7.