Cleared by Telangana Cabinet, Ghose panel report to be tabled in Assembly
Meanwhile, at a press conference at the Secretariat, Irrigation Minister N Uttam Kumar Reddy presented the findings of the Commission. He held KCR responsible for bypassing rules, ignoring expert warnings, and plunging the state into high-interest debt of `84,000 crore.
'As promised during elections, the government formed an inquiry commission on March 1, 2024, headed by retired Supreme Court judge and ex-Lokpal, Justice PC Ghose. Over nearly 16 months, the Commission collected information from the former chief minister, ministers, public representatives, IAS officers, and others. The Commission also summoned KCR, Harish Rao and Eatala Rajender, served them notices, and recorded their statements. After analysing all the information and statements, on July 31, 2025, the Commission submitted its 660-page report to the government,' Revanth explained.
'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 bypassed institutional processes,' He added.
Quoting from the report, he said: 'The Commission held that there was 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.'
Uttam said the decision to shift the barrage from Tummidihatti to Medigadda was taken solely by KCR, under the false pretext of water unavailability. 'The report says the reason for abandoning Tummidihatti does not appear sincere or honest,' he added. He recalled that even the then 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 the KCR government wrote to the Centre saying there was no water, and that misrepresentation was found to be malicious by the Commission,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
File contempt of court petition against Punjab: Hooda
Former Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda on Thursday said that the BJP government in Haryana should file a contempt petition against the Punjab government for not complying with the Supreme Court order on completing the Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal. The former CM said that the Congress has been repeatedly pointing out that the Punjab government is disobeying the decision of the Supreme Court but the Haryana government is just wasting time by holding fruitless meetings,' he said. Addressing a press conference, the Congress leader said it is high time that the state government stopped 'playing the game of holding futile meetings' with the neighbouring Punjab. 'It is the responsibility of the Union government to get Haryana its due share of water,'' Hooda said. 'The Supreme Court had handed over the responsibility of getting Haryana's share of water to the central government. There is a BJP government both in Haryana and at the Centre. In such a situation, Haryana should have got its share of water by now. But this did not happen due to the anti-Haryana attitude of the BJP,' Hooda said. The former CM said that the Congress has been repeatedly pointing out that the Punjab government is disobeying the decision of the Supreme Court but the Haryana government is just wasting time by holding fruitless meetings,' he said. The Congress leader said by increasing the collector rate, the BJP government has made it difficult for the average middle class family to build a house. 'Last year in December 2024, the government had increased the collector rate drastically. It is clear that the BJP is an anti-poor and anti-middle class,' he said.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
'Will Vacate Official Residence Within Permissible Time After Retirement': CJI Gavai
CJI BR Gavai said that he would vacate his official residence within the timeframe permissible as per the rules. Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Thursday said that he would not be able to find a suitable accommodation by the time he retires in November due to time constraints and 'for sure vacate" his current official residence within the deadline permitted under the existing norms. At a farewell event by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA), the CJI praised Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who will retire on August 9, calling him a warm person who devoted his career to the judiciary. Speaking to judges from the Supreme Court and high courts, as well as senior lawyers and their families, the CJI said Justice Dhulia would leave his official residence the day after his retirement. 'We will always remember his contribution to the judiciary. After retirement, he is going to be in Delhi, and he'll be one of the judges who will be vacating the house immediately. On the next day of his retirement," the CJI said. His remarks came nearly a month after the Supreme Court administration wrote to the Centre to vacate the official residence of the Chief Justice of India at Krishna Menon Marg in the national capital, stating that former CJI DY Chandrachud had lived there, surpassing the permissible timeframe. Justice Chandrachud vacated the official residence in August. 'As a matter of fact, that's a rarity. I wish I would also be in a position to do it till November 24. I won't find time to find a suitable house, but I can assure you that whatever time is permissible as per the rules, I'll be shifting before that. But Justice Dhulia has set a very good example. I am sure that many of us can emulate him," Justice Gavai said. Justice Dhulia was involved in many important Supreme Court rulings, including the Karnataka hijab ban case. In that case, he disagreed with the majority opinion and said there should be no ban on wearing the hijab in any school or college in the state. Justice Dhulia said, 'Let me tell you I was not defending the Hijab. What I was defending was the choice of women to wear Hijab. If I have a judicial philosophy, then I can only say that my judicial philosophy is everything is around the human being. Everything which is for the benefit of a human being is my judicial philosophy." (With PTI inputs) view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
'Can't Act Like Crook': Supreme Court Slams ED Over Low Convictions
Last Updated: The bench also raised serious concerns about prolonged incarceration during pending investigations and trials. The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its low conviction rate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The apex court said that the agency 'cannot act like a crook". The remarks by the Supreme Court cam during two different hearings by separate benches of the Supreme Court. The court reviewed matters concerning the legitimacy and execution of the PMLA. Both benches voiced concerns about the Enforcement Directorate's investigative practices, extended timelines, and notably low rate of convictions. In the first case, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai was hearing review petitions challenging its earlier ruling from May 2 in the Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (BPSL) insolvency case. That ruling had ordered the company's liquidation and rejected the resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel. However, the verdict has since been withdrawn, and the review petitions are now being reconsidered. During the hearing, the Enforcement Directorate's handling of the BPSL case came under scrutiny. This led to a tense exchange between the bench—which also included Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran—and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the ED. In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the Enforcement Directorate by highlighting the agency's financial recoveries. 'Let me tell a fact which was never said before in any court — ED has recovered Rs 23,000 crore and given it to the victims," he stated, stressing that the funds do not remain with the government but are returned to those defrauded. 'In some of the cases where politicians were raided and cash was found, our machines stopped functioning due to the volume of money… we had to bring in new machines," Mehta further defended. CJI, however, mentioned that judges don't decide matters on narratives. 'I don't see news channels. I only read headlines in newspapers for 10 to 15 minutes in the morning," he said. In a second and separate hearing, a three-judge bench comprising justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh said that ED cannot act like a crook. The remarks came while the court was hearing review petitions against the 2022 judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case. 'You cannot act like a crook. You have to work within the four corners of the law," said the bench. 'There is a difference between law-enforcing authorities and law-violating bodies. See what I observed in one of the cases….it came true in what a minister said in Parliament. After 5,000 cases, less than 10 convictions… That's why we insist improve your investigation, witnesses…we are talking about liberty of people," the bench. Justice Bhuyan added. The bench also raised serious concerns about prolonged incarceration during pending investigations and trials. Addressing Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who appeared for the Enforcement Directorate, it remarked, 'We are equally concerned about the image of ED also. At the end of five-six years of judicial custody, if people are acquitted, who will pay for this?" Previously, in the Vijay Madanlal ruling, the Supreme Court had upheld several contentious provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). These included the ED's authority to arrest, conduct searches and seizures, impose a reverse burden of proof, withhold the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), and enforce strict bail conditions. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
