KCR, Harish Rao Seek HC Intervention to Dismiss Ghose Commission Report

Swift Summary

• Bharat rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader and former Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhara Rao (KCR) along with former minister T. Harish Rao moved Telangana High Court challenging Justice P.C.Ghose Commission’s report on alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram project execution.
• Two separate writ petitions argue that the appointment of the commission under GO MS no. 6 violates provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and previous Supreme Court judgments.
• The petitioners requested that the July 31 report be quashed, calling it “prejudicial,” “scurrilous,” and not adhering to principles of natural justice.
• Claims include failure to provide notices under Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of inquiry Act before publishing findings and refusal to furnish a copy of the report despite requests.
• KCR asserted adherence to procedures in planning and executing the Kaleshwaram Project, including recommendations by WAPCOS Ltd., which secured statutory clearances from the Center for alternate construction sites.
• The Commission reportedly alleged negligence in Medigadda, Annaram, and sundilla barrages’ design; though, petitioners said findings were biased and echoed propaganda by Telangana’s current goverment.

Indian Opinion Analysis

The legal challenge by KCR and Harish Rao reopens scrutiny into governance practices behind mega-infrastructure projects like the Kaleshwaram project-an aspiring irrigation initiative crucial for Telangana’s water security. Their argument centers on procedural lapses in forming Justice P.C. Ghose’s inquiry commission while emphasizing perceived bias from conclusions drawn without due process or independent fact-finding.

If upheld by the court, these petitions could redefine judicial inquiries into public projects as requiring stricter adherence to natural justice principles-a growth useful for ensuring transparency but potentially slowing policy execution timelines during periods of political changeovers between governments. Meanwhile, claims about defamation require careful court deliberation given its implications on accountability mechanisms amid intergovernmental transitions.

For more details: Read More