‘Technical retrospective ambush as afterthought’: What Telangana govt told HC on pleas against Kaleshwaram probe report

The petitioners have primarily contended that they were not issued a notice under sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, which mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard and respond, as well as cross-examine the witnesses who deposed against them. Singhvi, responding to these, said the petitioners were aware of what the commission was inquiring into, received notices with details, participated voluntarily, deposed before the commission, submitted evidence, and never once remotely raised an objection to the process or requested cross-examination of witnesses.

“Their whole argument is form over substance. Every opportunity is given. Merely because the caption 8B is missing on the paper, there is denial of opportunity and natural justice? The omission to recite a particular source of power in a document is irrelevant. This is not a technical cat and mouse game to ambush things on pure technicalities,” Singhvi said, adding that the petitioners cannot argue denial of natural justice, opportunity or notice after having scrutinised and participated with full knowledge without any demur or protest. “I would say they got excess natural justice,” said Singhvi. It is a well-known principle of law, he said, that “the omission to mention a provision formally does not invalidate the order or action if otherwise the entire action is traceable to that provision anyway.”

‘Self-serving assumption that report has coercive consequences’

According to Singhvi, the petitioner’s “entire case is based on a conscious deliberate self-serving assumption that a fact-finding commission of inquiry report has coercive consequences on them”. That assumption has been wrong for the last 60-odd years, he said, clarifying that a commission of inquiry under the Act cannot and does not have any criminal, civil, or any liability at all.

Pointing to the commission’s findings, Singhvi added that those who have been found to be at fault by the commission cannot be prosecuted in a criminal court solely on the basis of the findings of the commission, and for that the state would have to ‘de novo establish its case’ (from the beginning) and hence there was no “scarecrow” (a pretence to mislead rather than serving a legitimate, active purpose) as claimed by the petitioners.

Countering the arguments of the petitioners against the use of “fix responsibility” in the terms of reference for the inquiry as prejudicial, Singhvi clarified that fixing responsibility did not mean someone was held criminally or civilly liable, condemned or convicted. He said that fixing responsibility was integrally connected with the job of a fact-finding commission.

On another argument of the petitioners that the government order appointing the commission contained findings of irregularities and thereby the entire exercise was predetermined, Singhvi said that issues of public importance that needed to be looked into by the commission were specified and did not necessarily mean findings.

Singhvi also argued that the state government received the inquiry report and, without any delay, referred the case to the CBI after convening the Assembly, showing complete transparency and absence of vendetta. He submitted that the issue went through a multi-layered examination with full application of mind at all stages.

Singhvi also took the bench through some of the important findings of the commission to underline the state of misgovernance. “The central water commission was bypassed, there was no recommendation of the high power committee, no approval of the competent authority, expert committee gave a recommendation against construction of barrages at the site, and most importantly, the cabinet subcommittee was not considered,” he said.

Recording the submissions, the bench adjourned the matter for further hearing on Tuesday.