Telangana HC Declines To Stay Justice P.C. Ghose Commission Report On Kaleswaram Project

The court also directed the state government to take down any uploaded excerpt if it was uploaded on government websites, until the report is tabled in the Legislative Assembly. The court opined that even a summary of the report should not have been uploaded.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing writ petitions filed by Chandrashekar Rao and Harish Rao, who sought quashing of GO Ms No. 6 dated March 14, 2024, by which the commission was constituted, and a direction that the report was prejudicial and defamatory as its contents were revealed by the Chief Minister and other ministers on August 4, without following the provisions of Sections 8B and 8C of the Commission of Inquiry Act which allowed them a chance to be heard and to be represented by counsel.

They also sought a declaration that repeated publication of the report dated July 31, without furnishing them a copy, was arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and in violation of principles of natural justice.

On Thursday, the court had directed Advocate General A. Sudershan Reddy to inform the stance of the state government as to whether it would take any action on the basis of the findings of the report before placing it in the Assembly.

On Friday, the Advocate General submitted written instructions from the government, that further action on the report would be taken only after discussion on the Floor of the Assembly.

Considering this, the bench made it clear that there was no requirement of issuing interim orders in the petitions filed by Chandrashekar Rao and Harish Rao. The court noted that when the state government had come out with a categorical assertion that no action would be taken on the basis of the report’s findings, no interim directions were required to be passed in that regard.

Chief Justice Singh noted: “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 court observed that Chandrashekar Rao and Harish Rao were apparently prejudiced because of alleged publication of the contents of the report through a press conference. The court also considered the petitioners’ allegations that a summary of the report was placed on the official website of the state government.

The court observed that before the Assembly undertook a discussion on the commission’s report, when the government had accepted the report and resolved to place it before the House, the report should not be placed in the public domain. The court directed the state government that in case the report had been uploaded on any official website, it should be taken down.

While refusing to issue interim directions for suspension or stay of the report, the court directed the state government to file a detailed counter-affidavit within four weeks, and the petitioners were given time to submit their replies within one week thereafter. The matter was adjourned to October 7 for further hearing.