Former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekar Rao on Friday told the Telangana High Court that ministers made “baseless public statements” against him in connection with the Commission report on the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, causing serious damage to his reputation even before the findings were legally tested.
During a lengthy hearing, senior counsel Seshadri Naidu appearing for KCR argued that the Commission violated principles of natural justice. He submitted that if any witness had named KCR during the inquiry, the Commission was legally bound under Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act to issue notice and provide him an opportunity to explain before recording any adverse findings.
The counsel contended that KCR was issued notice and summoned only as a witness, but the final report went beyond that and made allegations without granting him adequate opportunity to respond. He further argued that portions of the report were leaked to the media without verifying whether the contents were factually correct.
“An inquiry commission is not a court, and a commission report is not a judicial verdict,” the counsel submitted, adding that public remarks by ministers prejudiced the issue and harmed his client’s standing.
He also questioned the very legality of the Commission’s constitution, arguing that it lacked statutory validity and should therefore be set aside.
Appearing for senior IAS officer Smita Sabharwal, counsel argued that the report’s observations suggesting failure in discharge of duties were vague and unsustainable. The remarks, the lawyer said, not only cast aspersions on her professional conduct but also caused reputational harm.
Counsel for former CS S.K. Joshi argued that the government order constituting the Commission did not specifically direct it to determine the structural reasons behind the Medigadda barrage pillar subsidence. Instead, it merely asked the Commission to examine alleged irregularities and identify those responsible.
The lawyer contended that the government appeared to have reached conclusions even before issuing the Government Order, thereby vitiating the inquiry. He also submitted that during Joshi’s appearance before the Commission, no witness statements were cited against him, and the report’s observation that Business Rules were violated was unjustified.
With the petitioners completing their arguments, the High Court adjourned the matter to Monday to hear the State government’s response.
