Kaleshwaram irrigation project probe panel summons ex-Telangana Chief Minister
The Justice PC Ghose commission, investigating alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project (KLIP), has issued summons to former Telangana Chief Minister and BRS president K Chandrasekhar Rao.Notices have also been sent to former Irrigation Minister T Harish Rao and former Finance Minister Eatala Rajender. As per the schedule, KCR has been asked to appear on June 5, Harish Rao on June 6, and Eatala Rajender on June 9. They have 15 days to confirm their willingness to appear for cross-examination.advertisementThe commission is probing possible lapses in the planning, design, construction, quality control, operation and maintenance of the Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages under the KLIP. The inquiry was prompted by the collapse of piers at the Medigadda barrage and reported issues at other locations.
The one-man commission, headed by retired Supreme Court judge and former Lokpal of India, Justice PC Ghose, was constituted in March 2024. It has examined reports from the National Dam Safety Authority and the state's vigilance department, both of which pointed to irregularities.Several officials and engineers have reportedly stated that key decisions were made at the top political level, prompting the commission to seek clarification from senior leaders involved in the project's execution and major policy shifts, including the site relocation from Tummidihatti to Medigadda.WHAT IS KALESHWARAM LIFT IRRIGATION PROJECT?advertisementThe Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project is one of the largest multi-stage lift irrigation schemes in India. Conceived to draw water from the Godavari River, it aims to provide irrigation, drinking water, and industrial water supply across Telangana. The project includes several barrages and pump stations, with major components at Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla. It has faced scrutiny over cost overruns, engineering failures, and allegations of mismanagement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
42 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Democracy without dissent a contradiction: Justice Surya Kant
Democracy without dissent is a contradiction and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity, Supreme Court judge justice Surya Kant has asserted as he invoked India's constitutional ethos and the top court's role in defending civil liberties. Justice Kant, who is in line to take over as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in November this year, was speaking at the Washington Supreme Court as part of an international judicial exchange. In his address earlier this week that underscored the shared constitutional commitments of India and the United States, the judge said: 'Democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity…These are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations.' Justice Kant highlighted that the right to free speech, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the First Amendment in the US, has been 'zealously defended' by courts on both sides of the Atlantic. Drawing parallels with the US Supreme Court's protection of student protest in Tinker Vs Des Moines (1969), he recalled how India's top court, much earlier, had established the primacy of expression in Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan cases in 1950, ruling against pre-censorship and vague notions of public order. 'In both countries, the judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the executive may hold,' he noted. Reaffirming the foundational nature of constitutional supremacy in both democracies, Justice Kant highlighted that the basic structure doctrine in India that asserts Parliament cannot amend away core constitutional values mirrors the American principle that 'even the majoritarian will must bow' before foundational ideals like liberty, federalism, and equality. 'These doctrines reflect a shared understanding that tampering with these principles would cause a rift so immense that it would threaten the very heart of our existence,' he warned. ALSO READ | Free speech, democracy, and the epidemic of hurt feelings Justice Kant also spotlighted India's global leadership in using public interest litigation (PIL) as a judicial tool to redress collective harm. Citing the Vishaka judgment (1997) where the Indian Supreme Court laid down workplace sexual harassment guidelines in the absence of legislation, he said: 'Though structurally distinct, both approaches reflect a shared judicial philosophy: that justice must not be confined to individual litigants but must be responsive to collective harm and systemic failure.' In contrast, he acknowledged the role of class action lawsuits in the US, such as Lois Jenson Vs Eveleth Taconite Co (1993), where female workers collectively challenged workplace abuse. Addressing the evolution of due process jurisprudence, Justice Kant recalled how the Indian Constitution initially adopted 'procedure established by law' over the American-style 'due process,' but eventually evolved the latter through judicial interpretation. 'In the seminal Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Indian Supreme Court read into the phrase the requirements of justice, fairness, and reasonableness -- effectively harmonizing our doctrine with the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,' he added. Justice Kant concluded his address on a note of judicial kinship, stating: 'It is my firm belief that our countries, and our legal systems, share a kindred spirit rooted in the pursuit of justice, liberty, and the rule of law… The law must be a shield for the weak, not a sword for the powerful.'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Vishalgad Urs not held, yet 1,300 devotees went to fort for prayers at dargah
Kolhapur: Around 1,300 devotees visited Vishalgad to offer prayers at Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan's shrine on Sunday. The traditional four-day Urs, scheduled to begin on Sunday, was cancelled following restrictions by the state archaeology department. The Bakrid qurbani proceeded according to Bombay high court guidelines. While the Urs typically draws thousands of attendees, recent campaigns by right-wing organisations against encroachments have led to reduced attendance. The previous year's event was marred by violence over encroachment issues. The animal sacrifice ritual was conducted under strict protocols, requiring enclosed private premises. The area was surrounded by metal sheets to ensure compliance. Devotees from various regions queued early to climb to the fort, presenting identification such as Aadhaar cards for registration. The administration limited visits between 9am and 5pm, prohibiting overnight stays. All 1,300 registered visitors completed their darshan/prayers within the stipulated time. Sub-divisional officer Sameer Shingate, of the Pannala division, said: "Everyone left the fort before 5pm. Police bandobast and scrutiny will remain in place for three more days." Although the dargah trust officials proposed a modest Urs celebration, authorities implemented a complete prohibition. Kolhapur's superintendent of police Yogeshkumar Gupta said the administration has challenged the HC ruling permitting animal sacrifice at the fort in the Supreme Court. Right-wing groups opposed the HC decision, demanding the prohibition of both Urs and animal sacrifice at the historic 11th-century fort. These groups celebrated the administration's decision to ban the Urs as their success. Kolhapur: Around 1,300 devotees visited Vishalgad to offer prayers at Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan's shrine on Sunday. The traditional four-day Urs, scheduled to begin on Sunday, was cancelled following restrictions by the state archaeology department. The Bakrid qurbani proceeded according to Bombay high court guidelines. While the Urs typically draws thousands of attendees, recent campaigns by right-wing organisations against encroachments have led to reduced attendance. The previous year's event was marred by violence over encroachment issues. The animal sacrifice ritual was conducted under strict protocols, requiring enclosed private premises. The area was surrounded by metal sheets to ensure compliance. Devotees from various regions queued early to climb to the fort, presenting identification such as Aadhaar cards for registration. The administration limited visits between 9am and 5pm, prohibiting overnight stays. All 1,300 registered visitors completed their darshan/prayers within the stipulated time. Sub-divisional officer Sameer Shingate, of the Pannala division, said: "Everyone left the fort before 5pm. Police bandobast and scrutiny will remain in place for three more days." Although the dargah trust officials proposed a modest Urs celebration, authorities implemented a complete prohibition. Kolhapur's superintendent of police Yogeshkumar Gupta said the administration has challenged the HC ruling permitting animal sacrifice at the fort in the Supreme Court. Right-wing groups opposed the HC decision, demanding the prohibition of both Urs and animal sacrifice at the historic 11th-century fort. These groups celebrated the administration's decision to ban the Urs as their success.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Justice Kant: Indian judiciary shaped democracy's moral spine
NEW DELHI: Indian judiciary has been instrumental in shaping the democracy's moral spine by interpreting the Constitution's textual commands in a way that gave vibrancy and dynamism to the country's governance structure, said Justice Surya Kant, who will become the 53rd Chief Justice of India in Nov. Speaking to legal scholars and students in Seattle (US), he said in Kesavananda Bharti case, SC established the 'basic structure doctrine', which elucidated that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its fundamental identity. Justice Kant said, "When courts act to empower the powerless, grounded in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not usurp democracy - they deepen it." While judiciary's proactive stance has often filled legislative or executive voids in advancing rights and justice, it has also, at times, drawn criticism for encroaching upon policy domains traditionally reserved for elected branches of govt, he said. "This tension invites a deeper inquiry into the legitimacy and limits of judicial intervention in a constitutional democracy," he added. He said principles such as the Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Judicial Review were deemed unamendable. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo This doctrine, unprecedented at the time, was rooted not in textual literalism, but in an ethical reading of democratic continuity, he said. He juxtaposed the Bharti judgment with the infamous ADM Jabalpur case, in which during emergency SC had acquiesced to the govt's draconian diktat "no right available to citizens", and said it was only following the Maneka Gandhi case, immediately after the end of Emergency, that the true expansion of rights happened through SC's interpretative exercises. "In this period, SC has reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and underscored that its foundational values, especially those relating to life and liberty, are inviolable and beyond compromise," Justice Kant said. Explaining judicial independence, he said it encompasses the ability to have intellectual and moral independence, that stretches beyond mere institutional autonomy. "The underlying purpose of the independence of the judiciary is that judges must be able to decide a dispute before them according to law, uninfluenced by any other factor," he said, addingit is ingrained in the system ," he said.
