Why Telangana High Court blocked Kaleshwaram panel report

The four petitioners, including K Chandrashekar Rao, T Harish Rao, former chief secretary S K Joshi (now retired), and former CMO secretary Smita Sabharwal, approached the Telangana High Court in September 2025, challenging the Justice (retd) P C Ghose Commission of Inquiry report.

The inquiry was necessitated by the structural collapse of a few pillars of the Medigadda barrage on October 21, 2023. Following extensive hearings through February and March 2026, the division bench officially reserved its verdict on March 12, 2026, and delivered its orders on April 22.

PC Ghose Commission of Inquiry and its findings

The Commission was tasked with investigating alleged irregularities in the planning, design, and execution of the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project (KLIP), specifically focusing on the Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla barrages.

In its 660-page report, the Commission presented a sharp indictment of the previous BRS government’s handling of KLIP, focussing on the grave loss to the state exchequer as well as “rampant and brazen procedural and financial irregularities, lack of proper planning, design flaws, construction defects and a complete absence of effective operation and maintenance” in the construction of the three barrages.

The Commission concluded that the decision to shift the project’s source from Tummadihatti to Medigadda and the construction of the three barrages was the “sole and individual decision” of KCR. It noted there was no formal Cabinet discussion or sub-committee approval for this specific “re-engineering.”

KCR is held “directly and vicariously accountable” for lapses across planning, construction, and operation stages, the Commission said.

The P C Ghose Commission of Inquiry also recommended that amounts “wrongfully and illegally paid to the agencies with malicious intention to unduly benefit” should be recovered, jointly and severally, from the responsible officials and agencies.

High Court’s interim protection

During the initial hearing, the Telangana High Court granted interim protection to the petitioners against any coercive steps by the government, as the inquiry report was referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for further proceedings.

While Chandrasekhar Rao and Harish Rao were first granted interim protection on September 2, 2025, Joshi and Sabharwal were granted the same on September 16 and September 25, respectively.

The high court has consistently extended interim protection to the four petitioners until a final decision is reached.

Petitioner’s core arguments

The petitioners argued that the Commission failed to issue mandatory notices under Section 8-B of the Commission of Inquiry Act, which is required when a person’s reputation is likely to be prejudicially affected.

They argued that they were denied a fair opportunity to defend themselves. Specifically, they claim they were summoned only as witnesses but were later “indicted” or held responsible in the final report without being given a chance to respond to specific allegations.

The petitioner’s counsel, including Senior Advocates C Aryama Sundaram and Dama Seshadri Naidu, argued that while the Commission examined nearly 190 witnesses whose depositions implicated the former CM, he was not permitted to cross-examine them. They claimed the report contains “scathing and defamatory” observations aimed at damaging their public character and political standing, particularly as the findings were publicised via media presentations before being tabled before the state assembly.

Telangana Government’s defence

The state government, represented by Senior Advocates including Abhishek Manu Singhvi, countered the petitioner’s arguments, stating that the Commission’s findings were not based on personal opinions or oral testimony but on official documents from state and Central agencies, such as the CAG, the National Dam Safety Authority, and the Central Water Commission.

The state contended that strict procedural notices (specifically Sections 8B and 8C) were not legally mandatory because the report relied on objective government records rather than subjective witness statements to “indict” individuals.

They submitted that the inquiry was a matter of “staggering public importance” involving project costs that ballooned from roughly Rs 81,000 crore to over Rs 1.47 lakh crore. The counsel argued that the petitioners participated in the inquiry voluntarily and only challenged it as an “afterthought” once they realised the findings were adverse. They argued the petitioners’ focus on “defamation” was a narrow attempt to stall a report of massive public importance.