Court upholds constitutionality of Commission of Inquiry on Kaleshwaram Project but invalidates adverse findings against political and bureaucratic figures for non-compliance with Sections 8B and 8C of Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952
In a landmark judgment dated April 22, 2026, the Telangana High Court (Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin) partially allowed writ petitions filed by former Telangana Minister for Irrigation Thanneeru Harish Rao, former Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao, and senior bureaucrats challenging the findings of a Commission of Inquiry constituted to investigate alleged irregularities and embezzlement in the construction of barrages at Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla under the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project.
The Commission of Inquiry, headed by Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose (Former Supreme Court Judge and ex-Lokpal Chairman), was appointed under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 by the Telangana Government through G.O.Ms.No.6 dated March 14, 2024. It was mandated to inquire into allegations of negligence, irregularities, and corrupt practices in planning, designing, contract execution, operation, and maintenance of the said barrages after a structural failure at Medigadda in October 2023.
The Commission was empowered under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act to summon witnesses and collect evidence but was not a judicial body capable of adjudication. The petitioners contended that the Commission was improperly constituted as a "judicial inquiry," that it acted with mala fide intent, and crucially, failed to comply with statutory safeguards under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act, which require the Commission to provide any person whose conduct or reputation is likely to be adversely affected a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to cross-examine witnesses.
The Court, after a thorough analysis of the submissions and the Commission’s Report, held that:
1. The constitution of the Commission of Inquiry was valid, neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional. The State was within its rights to appoint such a Commission for a fact-finding inquiry into a matter of public importance involving massive public expenditure and infrastructural failure.
2. However, the Commission’s findings against the petitioners—detailing allegations of negligence, irregularities, and financial mismanagement—were prejudicial to their conduct and reputation. These findings were made without issuing proper statutory notices and disclosing adverse material, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of Sections 8B and 8C of the Act.
3. Specifically, the notices/summons issued to the petitioners did not indicate the adverse materials or allegations relied upon by the Commission nor afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves or cross-examine witnesses. The petitioners only became aware of the adverse findings during a government press conference after the report was tabled in the Assembly.
4. The Court emphasized that Sections 8B and 8C were introduced as statutory safeguards to protect the right to reputation—a facet of the fundamental right to life under Article 21—from prejudicial findings made without due process. Failure to comply with these provisions renders such findings inoperative and unenforceable.
5. The Court declined to quash the entire Commission Report but declared that the findings prejudicial to the petitioners’ conduct and reputation shall have no legal effect and no action can be taken based on those findings.
6. The judgment cited authoritative Supreme Court precedents including Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry (1989), Lal Krishna Advani v. State of Bihar (2003), and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar (1958), underscoring the non-adjudicatory nature of Commission reports and the necessity of procedural fairness when reputation is at stake.
7. The Court also clarified that the Commission’s reports are recommendatory and do not bind courts or authorities prosecuting criminal or civil cases.
This judgment reinforces the constitutional and statutory protection of individuals’ right to reputation in inquiries of public importance, mandating strict adherence to notice and hearing requirements under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
Bottom Line:
The findings of a Commission of Inquiry that adversely impact the conduct and reputation of individuals must comply with statutory safeguards under Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, failing which such findings shall be inoperative.
Statutory provision(s): Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 Sections 3, 4, 5, 5A, 6, 8, 8B, 8C; Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972 Rules 4, 5
Thanneeru Harish Rao v. State of Telangana, (Telangana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2887364
