HC Criticises "Premature" Release Of Ghose Report

The Telangana High Court today directed the State government to withdraw from all public domains the 60-page excerpt of the Justice P C Ghose Commission report on the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, which was made public before its tabling in the Assembly.

The court termed the move by the Chief Minister and the government overzealous and inappropriate.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin, while hearing two writ petitions filed by BRS president and former chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao and former Irrigation Minister Harish Rao, strongly objected to the manner in which the report was publicised.

The court questioned the propriety of the Chief Minister holding a press conference and releasing portions of the report before it was formally tabled in the Legislature.

The petitions, filed by KCR and Harish Rao, challenge the findings of the Ghose Commission, which probed alleged irregularities and failures in the construction of the Kaleshwaram project. The petitioners had sought suspension of the report, arguing that its findings touched upon their conduct and reputation, and could be used to initiate action against them. However, the Bench declined to stay or suspend the report.

In its interim order, the Court recorded the submission of Advocate General A Sudershan Reddy that the State government would place the complete report before the Legislative Assembly for discussion, and that any action, if warranted, would be taken only after the debate.

Dismissing the fears of the petitioners, the Bench observed, "The apprehension of the petitioners that action would be taken against them on the basis of the findings of the report allegedly touching upon their conduct and reputation is misplaced. Hence, no further interim directions are required."

The Bench also said that the Commission of Inquiry, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, had committed a serious lapse by making allegations against the petitioners without issuing prior notices under Sections 8B and 9C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. These provisions mandate that individuals whose conduct is under scrutiny be given an opportunity to present their case before adverse findings are recorded.

The court directed the State government to file a detailed counter-affidavit within four weeks addressing these concerns, and the petitioners were given one week thereafter to file their replies.