Uttam tears into BRS, says rank irregularities at all levels in KLIP
In a powerpoint presentation after the cabinet meeting, Uttam said the Commission's 660-page report, led by former Supreme Court judge Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, exposed how Telangana's most expensive project became an engineering and financial disaster due to unilateral and illegal decisions made during the BRS regime.
'We had promised the people that a judicial inquiry would be ordered into the Medigadda barrage collapse. After coming to power, we formed a Commission headed by Justice Ghose, and now that report has been submitted,' Uttam said. 'It clearly says KCR acted not as Chief Minister but as an administrative head issuing direct orders that went against institutional processes.'
Quoting from the report, Minister Uttam said: 'The Commission has held that there is rank irregularity from the stage of conceptualisation of the project till the administrative approvals on March 1, 2016. These decisions were not those of the government, but of individuals.'
He said the decision to shift the barrage from Tummidihatti to Medigadda was made solely by KCR, under the false pretext of water unavailability. 'The report says the reason for abandoning Tummidihatti does not appear sincere or honest,' Uttam added.
The Minister reminded that even Union Minister Uma Bharti had confirmed water availability at Tummidihatti and the Central Water Commission (CWC) had approved the hydrology of the Pranahita-Chevella project in October 2014. 'But KCR's government wrote to the Centre saying there was no water, and that misrepresentation was found to be malicious by the Commission,' Uttam said.
Minister Uttam revealed that an expert committee constituted by KCR's own government via G.O. Rt. No. 28 in January 2015 had recommended that building a barrage at Medigadda was unviable and not economical. 'They clearly said the barrage should be built at Vemanapally instead. That report was deliberately kept aside,' he said.
'The Commission observes that the suppression of this report was not accidental. It was done with intent to allow the CM and Irrigation Minister to go ahead with Medigadda against all expert advice,' he noted.
Uttam Kumar Reddy laid out the timeline: 'The Medigadda barrage agreement was signed in 2016. The Kaleshwaram project was inaugurated in 2019. By October 21, 2023, Pillar 20 of Medigadda's Block-7 collapsed due to structural failure.'
He said the Commission endorsed the NDSA's findings which cited serious planning and design flaws. 'The barrage was built on a permeable foundation, unsuitable for a storage structure. A cavity filled with soil was found instead of sand. Only 7,498 concrete samples were tested instead of the 37,000+ required,' he quoted from the report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
17 minutes ago
- India.com
HM Amit Shah Lays Foundation Stone of Mata Sita Temple
videoDetails HM Amit Shah Lays Foundation Stone of Mata Sita Temple Yashwant Bhaskar | Updated: Aug 08, 2025, 05:30 PM IST Union Minister Amit Shah said in Bihar's Sitamarhi that after Ayodhya, the biggest religious complex will be built here... Rs 128 crore will be spent on the Parikrama Path and all the other constructions... Here, an attempt will be made to tell the life of Mother Sita through Parikrama Path, Gyan Kendra Vatika... reconstruction of religious water sources... Dharamshalas... restaurants, medical facilities...3 Through this experience our youth will be able to see the events from the life of Lord Ram and Mother Janaki clearly.
India.com
17 minutes ago
- India.com
Trump tariffs aftermath: Panic among US businesses as orders worth billions cancelled due to..., companies to layoff workers as...
Representational Image Trump tariffs: US President Donald Trump's latest round of tariffs on Indian imports, which came into effect on August 7, has triggered panic among Indian as well as American businesses as orders worth hundreds of crore have either been cancelled or put on hold since Wednesday, when the Trump administration imposed an 25% penalty on India for buying arms and crude oil from Russia. Why US and Indian businesses are in panic? According to media reports, US businesses are apprehensive because of the additional tariffs on Indian imports which will come into effect on August 27, 2025. The issue of purchasing Russian oil has also been the subject of talks between Indian exporters and American importers, they said. 'After 25 percent tariffs, we will have to pay 15 percent import duty, but the burden will become unbearable when the 50 percent tariff rate kicks in. Our product isn't unique and can be easily replaced by other exporters,' the CEO of an an Indian garments firm that exports Rs 600 crore worth of apparel, told his US client in a phone call, the Times of India reported. The Indian exporter said that apart from his business, Trump tariffs will also affect the livelihood of over 8000 workers in his company. How Trump tariffs impact India's marine exports? Similarly, Thomas Jose, a Kerala-based exporter whose family has been exporting lobsters to the US for three generations, said that a majority of his US buyers called him after the Trump tariffs came into effect, and told him to halt shipments. Jose, who runs the Choice Group– a Kerala based export firm that ships goods worth Rs 900 annually, said his clients said that anything above 25 percent import duty would be unbearable for this business, as the imports goods would be too costly to be sold in the US. India exports marine products worth more than Rs 25,000 crore to the US each year. What about textile and jewellery industry? Meanwhile, India's jewellery industry is also under stress due to the fresh tariffs. Vijay Kumar Mangukiya, the MD of Dhani Jewels– a Surat-based jewellery exporter– revealed his US clients are asking to negotiate on diamond prices to circumvent the effect of Trump's additional 25 percent tariffs. The jeweler said price negotiations are possible till the tariff rate is 25 percent, but will become impossible at 50 percent tariffs. 'The buyer has talked about negotiating with his retail customers to bear the increased price, but if it doesn't happen, then we have no other option but to cancel the order,' he said. In the textile industry, which is likely to be hit hardest due to Trump tariffs, the CEO of an Indian textile export firm said he received a call from his American client, asking the exporter to bear the increased cost. The CEO refused, following which the buyer threatened to shift his order to Bangladesh. Indian textile industry exports goods worth Rs 87,525 crore to the US annually, which is about 28 percent of India's textile imports.
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Prez Trump plans to sign an order requiring US colleges to prove they don't consider race in admissions
President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order requiring colleges to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions, according to a fact sheet shared by the White House ahead of the Thursday signing. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions but said colleges may still consider how race has shaped students' lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays. Trump's Republican administration is accusing colleges of using personal statements and other proxies to consider race. The executive order is similar to parts of recent settlement agreements the administration negotiated with Brown University and Columbia University, restoring their federal research funding. The universities agreed to give the government data on the race, grade point average and standardised test scores of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students. The schools also agreed to an audit by the government and to release admissions statistics to the public. Conservatives have argued that despite the Supreme Court ruling, colleges have continued to consider race through proxy measures. The planned executive order makes the same argument. 'The lack of available admissions data from universities — paired with the rampant use of diversity statements' and other overt and hidden racial proxies — continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice,' the fact sheet said. The first year of admissions data after the Supreme Court ruling showed no clear pattern in how colleges' diversity changed. Results varied dramatically from one campus to the next. Some schools, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Amherst College, saw steep drops in the percentage of Black students in their incoming classes. But at other elite, selective schools such as Yale, Princeton and the University of Virginia, the changes were less than a percentage point year to year. Some colleges have added more essays or personal statements to their admissions process to get a better picture of an applicant's background, a strategy the Supreme Court invited in its ruling. 'Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2023 for the court's conservative majority. As an alternative to affirmative action, colleges for years have tried a range of strategies to achieve the diversity they say is essential to their campuses. Many have given greater preference to low-income families. Others started admitting top students from every community in their state. Prior to the ruling, nine states had banned affirmative action, starting with California in 1996. The University of California saw enrollment change after the statewide ban in 1996. Within two years, Black and Hispanic enrolments fell by half at the system's two most selective campuses — Berkeley and UCLA. The system would go on to spend more than $500 million on programs aimed at low-income and first-generation college students. The 10-campus University of California system also started a program that promises admission to the top 9% of students in each high school across the state, an attempt to reach strong students from all backgrounds. A similar promise in Texas has been credited for expanding racial diversity, and opponents of affirmative action cite it as a successful model. In California, the promise drew students from a wider geographic area but did little to expand racial diversity, the system said in a brief to the Supreme Court. It had almost no impact at Berkeley and UCLA, where students compete against tens of thousands of other applicants. Today at UCLA and Berkeley, Hispanic students make up 20% of undergraduates, higher than in 1996 but lower than their 53% share among California's high school graduates. Black students, meanwhile, have a smaller presence than they did in 1996, accounting for 4% of undergraduates at Berkeley. After Michigan voters rejected affirmative action in 2006, the University of Michigan shifted attention to low-income students. The school sent graduates to work as counselors in low-income high schools and started offering college prep in Detroit and Grand Rapids. It offered full scholarships for low-income Michigan residents and, more recently, started accepting fewer early admission applications, which are more likely to come from white students. Despite the University of Michigan's efforts, the share of Black and Hispanic undergraduates hasn't fully rebounded from a falloff after 2006. And while Hispanic enrollments have been increasing, Black enrollments continued to slide, going from 8% of undergraduates in 2006 to 4% in 2025
