HC extends interim protection to KCR until February 26

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court division bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Ghouse Meera Mohiuddin, on Monday adjudicated four writ petitions filed by former CM K Chandrashekar Rao, ex-Irrigation minister T. Harish Rao, retired IAS officer Shailendra Kumar Joshi who was Chief Secretary during the BRS regime, and Smita Sabharwal, who served as secretary in CMO.

The bench extended the interim protection granted to all petitioners directing the government not to take any adverse action against them based on the commission’s report until February 26, when the case has been adjourned for further hearing.

The petitioners have been accused of resorting to irregularities in the construction and execution of the Kaleshwaram irrigation project and filed individual writs seeking relief from the CJ bench. They are specifically seeking a direction to the government not to act upon or give effect to the report, dated July 31, 2025, submitted by the Justice Ghose Commission. The petitioners further seek a direction to suspend the operation of the report, stay further proceedings and adverse findings recorded against them.

The petitioners, represented by distinguished senior counsels, including Aryama Sundaram and Dama Seshadri Naidu of the Supreme Court, along with J. Ramchandra Rao, and former Additional Advocate-General during the BRS government, argued that the Ghose commission findings are prejudicial to their interests, as they were made without serving proper notice under Sections 8B and 8C of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952.

The counsels contended that findings of the commission touch upon the conduct and reputation of the petitioners and are prejudicial and defamatory in nature. They argued that the alleged report issued by Justice Ghose contains prejudicial, illegal, high-handed, scurrilous, defamatory and scathing observations and findings against the petitioners, which were revealed through a press conference and power point presentation, dated August 4, without issuing notices to the petitioners to respond as mandated under the Act.

The commission was constituted by the Congress government through GO 6 (Irrigation and Command Area Development), dated March 14, to conduct a judicial inquiry into alleged negligence, irregularities and lacunae in the planning, designing and construction of Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages, which form integral components of the Kaleshwaram lift irrigation scheme, and to fix responsibilities.

The petitioners have expressed grievance regarding the government action in repeatedly publishing the report without furnishing a copy to them. They contend that reports of such commissions are merely recommendatory in nature and that many reports have been set aside by HCs. Based on this precedent, the petitioners are seeking a direction to set aside the Justice Ghose Commission Report as well.

During the proceedings, A Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate-General, informed the bench that the government has filed counter-affidavits in all writs and that the petitioners filed replies. The case has been adjourned to February 25 for further hearing. The case involves significant questions regarding procedural compliance with the Act, natural justice principles, and the binding nature of commission reports on State governments.

The outcome of the proceedings will have important implications for the accountability and liability of former government officials in relation to the project, which has been the subject of considerable controversy regarding alleged irregularities in its planning, design and execution.