High Court to Telangana:When Will You Act On Ghose Report?

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court wanted to know when the state government would initiate action based on the Justice P.C. Ghose commission of inquiry report on the irregularities in the Kaleshwaram lift irrigation scheme (KLIS). The court asked whether “the state government will take further action after the commission's report is tabled before the Assembly or if it wants to take action first and then table the (commission) report before the Assembly along with the action taken report.”

A division bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin on Thursday directed Advocate-General A. Sudarshan Reddy to inform the court of the government’s stance by Friday.

The bench sought this clarification after the Advocate-General’s submission that the Council of Ministers had decided to take action based on the commission report.

Aggrieved with the government’s decision to take action based on the report, former chief minister K. Chandrashekar Rao and former minister T. Harish Rao approached the Telangana High Court to strike down the report and to direct the government to not initiate action.

The petitioners mentioned flaws and violation of provisions of the Inquiry Commission Act, by Justice Ghose in submitting the report.

On Thursday, senior counsels Dama Sheshadri Naidu representing Chandrashekar Rao and Aryama Sundaram representing Harish Rao argued that the Justice Ghose report was illegal and the commission had not followed the principle of natural justice by not giving a fair opportunity to the petitioners.

Counsels said the petitioners were summoned as witnesses by the Justice Ghose commission only once. Some questions were put to the petitioners, to which they had replied. But, the report was not officially released or nor were copies served to the petitioners.

At the same time, the report was submitted to the government. The Council of Ministers, including Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, held a press conference and a Powerpoint presentation on August 4 and announced that Justice Ghose had held Chandrashekar Rao and Harish Rao guilty of bad planning and execution of the KLIS. The executive summary was distributed to media houses and uploaded on the government website.

Counsels argued that this was nothing but tarnishing the reputation of Chandrashekar Rao and Harish Rao.

The second point they raised was that the commission made a fundamental mistake by not giving the petitioners an opportunity to defend themselves or cross-examine those who had furnished adverse information against them. The principle, as mandated under Section 8 (B) of the Commission of Inquiries Act, was that the individuals likely to be adversely affected by the findings of commission must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. There is a right to cross-examine the witnesses who were levelling allegations against them.

They furnished the citations and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in a case involving senior BJP leader L.K. Advani versus the State of Bihar and the Kiran Bedi case.

If the commission found any ground to indict the petitioners or hold them accountable for alleged irregularities, a fresh notice under Section 8(B) should have been issued. The procedure has not been followed by Justice Ghosh Commission.

Sheshadri Naidu argued that the GO issued appointing the commission clearly said it was a judicial inquiry. But, the commission had performed the duties contrary to the GO and it had not followed procedure.

Faulting the presentation and press conference by Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, counsel argued that it was deliberately done with political interest to put the reputation of Chandrashekar, and the truth, at stake. Without tabling the report in the Assembly and holding a discussion on it, declaring that Chandrashekar was solely responsible was nothing but triggering a gun against a political opponent.

Advocate-General Sudarshan Reddy sought dismissal of the petitions and urged the court to not pass interim orders which would impede discussion of the report in the Assembly. The AG bypassed the court’s straight question whether the Chief Minister and ministers had conducted a press conference or not and uploaded the executive summary of the report.

The Advocate General argued that the report will be tabled before the Assembly and the petitioners, who are members of the Legislative Asembly, can discuss the issue before the House. When the Advocate General submitted that he was not in position to inform the stand of the government on when action will be initiated based on the report, the court asked him to inform by Thursday evening. On the request of the AG, the court directed him to inform it by Friday.

Senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy, representing the Justice Ghose commission, submitted that separate notices under Section8 (B) were required and submitted that the citation of the L.K. Advani case did not apply here.