Statutory Safeguards Under Section 8B are Mandatory When Commission Findings Prejudicially Affect Personal Reputation

The Telangana Government, via G.O.Ms.No. 6 dated 14.03.2024, appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose to investigate alleged financial irregularities and negligence in the construction of the Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla barrages of the Kaleshwaram Project

The petitioners—the former Chief Minister (KCR), former Irrigation Minister (THR), and two senior IAS officers (SKJ and SS)—challenged the G.O. as ultra vires and sought to set aside the Commission's Report dated 31.07.2025

They contended that the Commission rendered defamatory findings against them without issuing mandatory notices under Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, despite summoning them only as witnesses

1. Whether the constitution of the Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Act vide G.O.Ms.No.6 is arbitrary, illegal, or ultra vires the Constitution and the Act of 1952?

2. Whether the findings rendered by the Commission are prejudicial to the conduct and reputation of the petitioners without following the statutory safeguard provided under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act, and thereby in violation of the principles of natural justice?

Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, which empowers the Government to appoint a commission on matters of public importance

the "Dominant Purpose Test" from P.V. Jagannath Rao v. State of Orissa to determine the validity of the Commission's appointment

Section 8B (mandatory notice to persons likely to be prejudicially affected) and Section 8C (right to cross-examine and legal representation), noting these were inducted to safeguard the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution, as established in Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani

Regarding Issue 1, the court found the G.O. valid because the sinking of barrage piers was a matter of definite public importance, and the "dominant purpose" was to identify systemic lapses rather than target individuals; the use of the term "Judicial Inquiry" did not shift its statutory nature

Regarding Issue 2, the court analyzed the summons issued to the petitioners. It found that while petitioners were called as witnesses (Section 4/5), the Commission eventually recorded scathing findings—such as "intent to siphon public funds" and "malicious suppression of reports"—which directly impeached their conduct and reputation

The court reasoned that since Section 8B is a mandatory statutory embodiment of audi alteram partem, the Commission's failure to issue specific notices detailing incriminating material or allowing cross-examination under Section 8C rendered the prejudicial findings legally unsustainable, regardless of the petitioners' voluntary appearance as witnesses

It held that the findings in the Report dated 31.07.2025 which prejudicially affect the conduct and reputation of the petitioners are inoperative due to the violation of Section 8B and principles of natural justice. The court directed that no action shall be taken against the petitioners based specifically on those prejudicial findings